Relocate a note or collection to a different parent collection, or send it to root by omitting the target parent ID.
Move a note or collection to a different parent collection
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the note or collection to move | |
| targetParentId | No | ID of the target parent collection. Omit or null to move to root. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, idempotency, what happens if the target parent does not exist, or whether the move is reversible. 'Move' implies mutation but no side effects or failure modes are disclosed.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it also leaves everything else unsaid.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description would need to do more for a mutation tool, but the 100%-covered schema at least handles the null-target-to-root case and parameter meaning. Error behavior and permission requirements remain unaddressed.
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 both parameters are already documented — including the important 'omit or null to move to root' behavior — establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (move) and resource (note or collection) with the destination concept, which distinguishes it from siblings like update_note or create_note. However, the tool is named move_note while the description widens scope to 'note or collection', leaving minor ambiguity about what the id actually references.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never names an alternative such as update_note for reparenting-adjacent edits. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.