Move Artifact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but reveals minimal behavioral traits. It states the tool moves artifacts and allows null parent_id for root, but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether the move is destructive/reversible, rate limits, or what happens to artifact relationships. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences that directly address core functionality and a key parameter nuance. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, permission requirements, or how it differs from similar sibling tools like 'move_document' and 'move_folder'.

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 the description must compensate but only adds meaning for 'new_parent_id' (null moves to root). It doesn't explain 'graph_id', 'artifact_id', or 'new_order' parameters. With 4 parameters total and only 1 partially clarified, this meets the baseline for minimal compensation.

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 the verb ('Move') and resource ('an artifact'), specifying the action of relocating to a different folder. It distinguishes from siblings like 'move_document' and 'move_folder' by focusing on artifacts, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'rename_artifact' or other artifact-related tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_document', 'move_folder', or 'rename_artifact'. It mentions moving to root level with null parent_id, but offers no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or sibling tool distinctions.

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