move_note

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

In the absence of annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: immediate in-place rewriting of wiki-links (detailing link variants), frontmatter title auto-rewrite logic under specific conditions, and the dryRun option. Response format is also mentioned.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then explains behavior and response in 3 concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, parameter implications, and return structure. Could mention error handling or constraints, but overall complete for its complexity.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets baseline but does not exceed.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Rename or move a note.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like edit_note, delete_note, etc., by explicitly describing its core renaming/moving functionality and the link-rewriting behavior.

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 the tool is for renaming/moving notes but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The sibling list is provided but not referenced.

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