Move a document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'and/or' destination semantics and discloses nothing beyond structured data — no mention of permission requirements, effects on children of a moved parent document, or behavior when both optional arguments are omitted.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence followed by an inline arg list; nothing is padded. The 'Args:' enumeration largely duplicates the schema, but it is compact and does not obscure the primary statement.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description is thin: it omits permission needs, the effect of supplying only one of the two optional parameters, and confirmation of what a successful move changes. An agent cannot call this correctly in edge cases from the current text.

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% (just 'Document id'), so the description carries the burden for collectionId and parentDocumentId. It merely restates the parameter names, adding no meaning — it does not explain that these identify the destination collection and parent document, nor whether either is optional and what happens if both are absent.

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?

States a specific verb (move) and resource (document) plus the two dimensions being changed (collection and/or parent), which is concrete and non-tautological. It is not explicitly differentiated from siblings like outline_update_document or outline_get_document, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus update_document, no prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), and no note that at least one of collectionId/parentDocumentId should be supplied for the call to be meaningful.

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