move_page_to_space

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that sub-pages are moved along with the page, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not explain permissions, side effects, or what happens to the original location (since destructiveHint=false, it implies source is not destroyed, but that is already clear from annotations). The description does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's core function. It is appropriately concise for a tool with two well-described parameters.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should disclose what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator, moved page object). It does not. Additionally, for a mutation tool, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., user permissions, page not locked) and potential side effects. Sibling tools like 'get_page' have output schemas, making this one feel incomplete.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: page_id is described as 'The Docmost page ID or slug ID to move' and space_id as 'The target space ID (UUID) to move the page (and its sub-pages) into.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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'), the resource ('a Docmost page with its sub-pages'), and the target ('to a different space'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'copy_page_to_space' (copy vs move) and 'move_page' (which likely moves within a space). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes 'move_page' (ambiguously named) and 'copy_page_to_space', but the description does not clarify the difference or suggest contexts for each. Users are left to infer usage scenarios.

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