move_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well: discloses that it rewrites wikilinks and markdown links, excludes fenced code blocks by design, auto-creates parent dirs, and fails on existing destination unless overwrite. However, it doesn't cover whether the move is reversible or what happens to frontmatter references.

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 sentences, dense with useful information. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, behavior on links with edge case, destination creation/failure rule. No redundancy with the schema.

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 4-param move tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the key behaviors well: link rewriting, code-block exclusion, dir creation, overwrite semantics, and the rewriteLinks escape hatch. Minor gap: no mention of rename being a special case of move (from=to-adjacent) or what the return value indicates.

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 coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the link-rewriting side effect tied to rewriteLinks (defaults true), which the schema's bare 'Rewrite references... Defaults to true' doesn't fully convey. It also explains the overwrite fail-on-exists behavior, though param semantics are otherwise adequately covered by schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Move or rename a note to a new vault-relative path'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_note, delete_note, and patch_note by naming the path-move behavior. The wikilink/markdown link rewriting behavior further differentiates it from get_backlinks/get_links which are read-only.

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 states clear behavioral context: parent directories are created automatically, fails if destination exists unless overwrite is true, and links in fenced code blocks are intentionally left alone. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or could-not-use conditions, but the move behavior is self-evidently distinct from create/delete siblings.

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