Move Note Or Folder

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses critical behaviors: it overwrites/replaces existing content at the destination, fails when the source does not exist, and rewrites wiki/markdown links vault-wide when updateLinks is true. It also explains the vaultPath override semantics. This adds substantial operational detail that annotations alone do not convey.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, then details about kind, updateLinks, destructiveness, failure condition, and vault selection follow. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition. It is well-structured for an agent to quickly grasp the essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity (moving files/folders with link rewriting and destructive behavior) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it moves, how it handles links, destructive consequences, failure conditions, and vault selection. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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% (each parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the default behavior of updateLinks (true) and how vaultPath overrides the session-active vault, which is not fully captured in the schema. This added context justifies a 4.

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 clearly states the verb ('Move') and resource ('a note or folder to a new path'), and immediately distinguishes the two kinds ('note' vs 'folder' with 'moves every note beneath it'). It also explains link rewriting, making it distinct from sibling tools like notes.delete or notes.create. No tautology; the description adds specificity beyond the title.

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 provides clear context: it operates on the session-active vault unless vaultPath is passed, and it is destructive. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions like 'use notes.move instead of notes.delete when you need to relocate', so the 'when not to use' is only implied. The vault selection guidance is helpful, but the lack of explicit exclusions prevents a 5.

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