move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions returning a confirmation or error, but does not disclose whether the operation can overwrite existing files, whether links/backlinks are updated, or any destructive risks. This is a significant gap for a file operation that changes the location of a note.

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 exceptionally concise and well-structured, with clear sections for arguments and return value. It front-loads the main purpose and avoids any redundant wording, earning its place in every sentence.

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 move/rename operation, the description covers basic arguments and output, but omits critical operational details such as overwrite behavior, impact on internal references, and filesystem constraints. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return documentation, yet the description still lacks sufficient context for safe and correct use.

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?

The description provides brief semantics for both parameters—'Chemin actuel de la note' and 'Nouveau chemin'—which adds value over the schema's minimal 'Old Path'/'New Path' titles. However, it does not specify path format (absolute vs relative), file name rules, or directory behavior. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but remains incomplete.

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 tool's function with the verbs 'Déplace' (move) and 'renomme' (rename) and the resource 'une note' (a note). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as read, write, and delete.

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 usage for moving or renaming notes but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, relying on the tool's name and verb to convey context.

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