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. It discloses automatic directory creation and failure behavior, but it omits whether the original note is deleted or the return value/status on success or failure.

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?

Two sentences convey all essential behavioral information without any redundant or extraneous content. Every clause adds value.

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?

While the description covers core behavior, it lacks information about the return value or success/failure indication. Given no output schema, this omission means an agent has incomplete guidance for interpreting the result.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the automatic directory creation and the overwrite dependency, providing meaningful additional semantics.

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 clearly states 'Move or rename a note to a new vault-relative path,' using a specific verb and resource. It also notes automatic parent directory creation and failure condition, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_note, delete_note, and patch_note.

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 implies usage context by specifying when the operation fails (destination exists without overwrite) and automatic parent directory creation. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like rename_note, which is not present among siblings.

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