akb_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does this well: it discloses redirect behavior for the old URI, rewriting of graph links/publications, git-history preservation, and unchanged title. It stops short of mentioning permissions, failure modes, or return value, which would make it fully transparent.

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?

Each of the four sentences adds distinct value: what moves, what is preserved, redirect/rewrite behavior, and the constraint plus alternative tool. The critical constraints are front-loaded before the pointer to akb_update.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential call-time decisions and side effects well. It does not describe the response format or authorization requirement, but all selection and invocation criteria are substantially present.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the key constraint that collection and slug are optional yet at least one must change. It also adds meaning to slug ('filename base'), complementing the schema's basic descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair ('Move or rename a document') and the exact dimensions that change (collection and/or slug), immediately setting it apart from content-editing tools. It explicitly distinguishes itself from akb_update by noting the title is unchanged.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use rule: change a document's collection/slug while preserving identity and history. It also provides a when-not-to-use direction by pointing at akb_update for title changes, plus the precondition that at least one of collection/slug must change.

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