Move page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the dual-space Editor+ permission requirement (source AND target) and the mutual exclusivity between make_root and parent_id — neither is in the 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The move semantics and their parameter mappings come first, and the constraint follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with an output schema in place, the description covers the operation set, permissions, and the at-least-one-parameter rule, so nothing critical is missing. It could still be richer about what happens to existing children or ordering when space_id changes, but the output schema and annotations absorb most of that burden.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds a constraint not encoded in the schema — that at least one of the four movement parameters must be supplied — which meaningfully guides correct invocation.

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 gives a specific verb (move) plus the four distinct sub-operations (reparent, detach, reorder, relocate) and maps each to its parameter, so the agent understands the exact scope. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like update_page or patch_page, which also mutate pages.

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 states a real prerequisite (Editor+ in both source and target space) and a call constraint ('provide at least one of space_id / parent_id / make_root / position'), which is genuinely useful. However, it never says when to prefer move_page over update_page or patch_page, so the routing decision remains implicit.

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