move_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the memory retains its content and embedding, that only its space membership changes, and that knowledge-graph entries are rebuilt in the target space so graph and search agree. This reveals important side effects beyond the tool name.

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 tight and well-structured: purpose, behavioral effect, prerequisite, then arguments. Every sentence earns its place, and no redundant or vague filler is present.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation, side effects, prerequisites, and parameter meanings. Nothing critical is missing, and return-value details are handled by the output schema.

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%, so the Args section must compensate. It does: chunk_id is defined as the UUID of the chunk to move, and target_space is defined as the name of the destination space. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Move a stored memory into a different space.' It clarifies what changes (space) and what stays the same (content and embedding), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like recall, remember, and forget.

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?

The description clearly states the use case and an important prerequisite: the target space must already exist, and it points the user to the dashboard or API to create one. It does not explicitly call out alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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