Move a knowledge base to a target group (book stack) using book ID and stack ID. Reorganize or retire knowledge bases between groups; cookie and ctoken authentication required.
移动知识库到指定分组（书架）。需要 cookie+ctoken 认证。PUT /api/mine/book_stack/move。常用于将知识库从一个分组（如预废弃）移到另一个分组（如废弃）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book_id | Yes | 知识库 ID（数字，必填） | |
| stack_id | Yes | 目标分组 ID（书架 ID，必填） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses required authentication (cookie+ctoken) and the HTTP endpoint (PUT /api/mine/book_stack/move), but omits mutation side effects, reversibility, error behavior, and what happens to existing associations.
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 compact single paragraph that front-loads the action, then adds authentication, endpoint, and a common usage scenario. Each sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy, though it could be slightly tighter.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and endpoint but leaves gaps around side effects, success/failure responses, and whether the move is reversible. It is adequate but not fully complete for safe invocation.
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% and both required parameters (book_id, stack_id) are documented in the schema. The description mentions the concepts of knowledge base and target group but adds no formatting, constraints, or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (移动) and resource (知识库到指定分组/书架), and the action is clearly distinct from sibling reads (get_book_stacks) and sorts (sort_book_stack). However, it does not explicitly name or compare against those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Gives a clear typical use case: moving a knowledge base from one group (e.g., pre-discard) to another (e.g., discard). This provides context for when to use it, but there are no explicit exclusions or direct comparisons to alternative tools, so it lacks the alternative guidance needed for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.