yuque_web_batch_move_catalog_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: cookie-based auth, no membership requirement, cross-repo capability (target_book_id may differ), and the parent-child placement. It still omits mutation-side behavior such as reversibility, partial-failure handling, and rate limits, which matter for a batch mutation.

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?

Front-loads the auth mode and core action, then layers the cross-repo and placement details compactly. The trailing Chinese doc reference is minor overhead but every sentence conveys usable information; no filler.

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 definition covers auth, permissions, scope, and the cross-repo case well enough to invoke correctly. The remaining gap is what happens on partial failure of a batch, but that is a modest omission given the available structured data.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the cross-repo meaning of target_book_id and the JSON-array format of node_uuids. The description's restatement of cross-repo support reinforces but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 (batch move) and resource (document nodes) with the destination (target catalog node), and the node_uuids-under-target_uuid semantics make the effect unambiguous. The 'Batch' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the singular sibling yuque_web_move_catalog_node, but the description never names that alternative.

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 some usable context ('Supports cross-repo move', 'No membership required') that tells an agent this works even without repo membership. However it never states when to prefer this over yuque_web_move_catalog_node or when a batch move should be split into singles, leaving the batch-vs-single decision to inference.

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