memory_move_item

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and destructive hints. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: cross-project moves are allowed within the org, and item identification can be fuzzy via title substring. It does not detail edge cases like what happens when both id and title are provided, but this is not a major gap for a move operation.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, the purpose is given, and the addressing instructions follow naturally. 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 relatively simple move operation, the description covers the purpose, the way to locate the item, the way to specify the destination, and a key organizational constraint. No output schema exists, but neither is one strongly needed for a move. It does not mention precedence between id and title, but this is a minor omission.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents id as UUID, title as substring, and target_space as name or UUID. The description reinforces these semantics but does not add meaningful information beyond the schema beyond the cross-project allowance.

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 names a specific action ('Move a knowledge item to a different space') and clarifies the organizing purpose ('organizes memory by topic'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like memory_move_space and memory_delete, which operate on different resources or actions.

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 explains how to identify the item (id or title substring) and target space (name or UUID), and notes cross-project moves are allowed. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying when not to use the tool, but the intended use case is clear.

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