move_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose two important constraints: moving into private areas is forbidden and the destination must not already exist. However, it does not describe side effects such as whether old paths are invalidated, error behavior, or reversibility, leaving the mutation behavior only partially transparent.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Move a note within the vault') and then appends the two essential constraints. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits key context: what a successful move returns, what happens if the source note does not exist or the destination already exists, and how expected_hash interacts with the move. The two constraints are helpful but not enough for confident 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the destination parameter ('destination must not exist,' 'never private'). It adds nothing about 'note' or 'expected_hash'; the optional hash parameter is entirely unexplained. Thus the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Move a note within the vault,' which is unambiguous and immediately distinguishes this from the listed siblings such as append_note or archive_notes. The added constraint 'never into a private area' further refines the operation. No other sibling tool performs a move, so the purpose is fully clear.

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 use when relocating a note inside the vault, but it does not state when to prefer this over alternatives or call out any when-not-to-use conditions. Constraints like 'destination must not exist' act as preconditions, not usage guidance. There is no explicit reference to alternatives among sibling tools.

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