yuque_web_move_catalog_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose two important traits: cookie-based auth and no membership requirement, plus the mutation's ability to span repos and entire subtrees. It stops short of describing side effects on sibling ordering/TOC state or any failure modes, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the action, the transport/endpoint, then the two notable capabilities, all before the reference pointer. Slightly cluttered by the inline reference path, but every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key missing context an agent needs: auth model, cross-repo behavior, and subtree semantics. Return/response shape is not described, which is the only meaningful gap.

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 all seven parameters are already documented with meaning (action defaults, book_id as source, target_uuid null meaning root, target_book_id defaulting to book_id). The description reinforces target_book_id for cross-repo and with_children for subtrees but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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+resource ('Move a single catalog node') plus its destination scope (target catalog node / target repo), and the word 'single' implicitly contrasts with the sibling yuque_web_batch_move_catalog_nodes while the verb contrasts with yuque_web_copy_catalog_node. The endpoint line (PUT /api/catalog_nodes/move) removes any remaining ambiguity.

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 gives useful capability conditions — cross-repo moves where target_book_id differs from book_id, whole-subtree moves via with_children, and 'No membership required' — which tells the agent what this tool can handle. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer it over yuque_web_batch_move_catalog_nodes or yuque_web_copy_catalog_node, so routing is left to inference.

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