move_note

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

Annotations mark destructiveHint true)Skip revisiting. The description adds concrete behavioral details beyond that: wikilinks across the vault are automatically updated, no redirect stubs are created, and .md is appended. This is valuable, though the unrestricted claim that wikilinks are 'always' updated conflicts slightly with the existence of an update_links parameter that can be set to false.

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 all information front-loaded: the primary action first, then the most important side effects and the backup exclusion. Every sentence contributes, and there is no fluff.

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?

Given the sparse param schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, major side effects, and one exclusion, but misses the update_links parameter explanation and possible collisions. For a destructive operation, these are meaningful gaps, so the description is merely adequate, not complete.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It implicitly covers old_path/new_path through 'move or rename' and the mention of .md extension, but it says nothing about update_links, its default true value, or how to disable it. Without this, an agent cannot reason about the most configurable part of the operation.

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 starts with 'Move or rename a note,' giving a specific verb and resource. It goes further by explaining that wikilinks are updated vault-wide and explicitly distances itself from redirect stubs alerting and from delete_note, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It gives an explicit exclusion, 'Do not use this to create backups; use delete_note instead,' and warns against creating redirect stubs. However, it doesn't cover other potential alternatives or conditions, such as when renaming vs. moving is appropriate or what to do when a destination already exists.

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