move_note

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses concrete behavioral traits: it rewrites wikilinks and markdown links in other notes while leaving fenced code blocks untouched, auto-creates parent directories, and fails if the destination exists unless overwrite is true. This is rich, actionable context that goes well beyond the annotation and helps an agent anticipate side effects.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by critical behaviors (link rewriting, directory creation, overwrite failure). No filler — every sentence earns its place.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main side effects (link rewriting, directory creation, failure conditions) and explains the overwrite and rewriteLinks parameters behaviorally. The prevHash guard is documented in the schema but not in the description; however, the agent can infer it from the parameter description. Given the complexity, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a clear meaning. The description adds context around rewriteLinks (rewriting links in other notes) and overwrite (failure behavior) but does not add new information for from, to, or prevHash beyond the schema. It sits at the baseline of 3 because the schema carries the parameter explanation.

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 'Move or rename a note to a new vault-relative path' — a clear verb, resource, and target location. It explicitly describes the link-rewriting side effect, distinguishing it from destructive delete_note and heading-renaming rename_heading.

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 conveys when to use the tool (moving/renaming notes) and details the overwrite and link-rewriting behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the purpose is unambiguous given the sibling list; this falls short of a perfect 5 that requires explicit when-not/alternatives.

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