postmd_move_document_to_group

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It discloses the replacement side effect ('this replaces its current group'), ownership and group-use constraints, and the required API key scope. This gives an agent a realistic picture of the operation's conditions and consequences.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with no filler. The key action is first, the one-group replacement behavior is front-loaded, and the auth requirement is stated at the end. Every sentence adds necessary information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a moderate-complexity move operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, preconditions, side effects, and auth. It does not describe return values or failure behavior, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly appears to be missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It maps docCode to 'a document you own' and groupId to 'a group you can use,' adding meaning beyond the bare parameter names. folderId is already described in the schema as 'File it into this folder of that group.' It does not restate types, which the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Move') on a clear resource ('a document') with an explicit destination ('into a group... optionally into a folder'). It also clarifies the crucial semantic that a document belongs to exactly one group, which differentiates this move operation from content updates like postmd_update_document.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to change the group membership of a document you own. It also adds preconditions (document ownership, group usability, documents:write permission). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use update_document for content changes instead,' but the semantics are clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.