Notes Move Note

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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint false, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false), the description adds no behavioral context. It does not disclose that the operation relocates a note, what side effects occur, whether folder associations change, or any permission implications. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but no value is added.

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 short, but brevity is not conciseness when the sentence carries no behavioral meaning. It is boilerplate provenance rather than useful specification, and it does not earn its place in front of the agent.

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 two-parameter mutation-like operation with no schema descriptions and no usage guidance, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot tell what the tool does, how to obtain valid IDs, what the return value means, or how it differs from sibling note tools. This is far below minimum viable completeness.

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 0%, and the description mentions neither note_id nor folder_id. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not explain identities, formats, required lookups, or how they relate to notes_list_folders/notes_list_notes. Low schema coverage means the description needed to compensate, and it did not.

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 is essentially a tautology: it only says the tool is a delegated Apple tool named notes_move_note exposed through Apple-Tools-M-CP. It never states that the tool moves a note to a folder, so an agent must rely on the title and parameter names. This does not clear the bar for even a vague purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool or when to prefer sibling tools such as notes_update_note, notes_create_note, or mail_move_message. The description provides no usage context, alternatives, or exclusions, so the agent is left with no decision support.

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