wikijs_move_page

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

Without annotations, the description discloses mutation behavior and prerequisites. It explains the confirm parameter condition. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., redirects, broken links), leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences: first states the core purpose, second lists requirements and confirm condition. No superfluous words, well-structured and efficient.

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?

The description covers purpose, requirements, and the confirm mechanism. With 4 params and no output schema, it is mostly complete. Missing details about post-move behavior (e.g., redirects) would be nice but not critical.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning to the confirm parameter (explains its conditional use) and implies default behavior for destinationLocale. This adds value beyond the schema for these parameters.

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 action 'Move a page' and the resource 'page', specifying what can be changed (path or locale). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_page or delete_page.

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?

It mentions prerequisites (WIKI_MUTATIONS_ENABLED=true) and permission requirements (manage:pages), guiding when to use. However, it does not contrast with similar tools like update_page, so guidance on alternatives is implicit.

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