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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond that: no-overwrite behavior, that the source path changes, and the account-bound computer:write OAuth plus local owner approval prompts. That is useful, though failure modes and post-move state are left implicit.

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 clauses, each load-bearing: action, non-destructive alternative, and permission requirements. It is front-loaded with the core operation and wastes no words.

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-param destructive mutation with full annotation and schema coverage and no output schema, this covers scope, auth, and the safe alternative well. Only the failure behavior when the destination exists and the return/confirmation shape are unstated, which are minor gaps.

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 both params are documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit more – that 'from' ceases to exist after the move and that overwriting the 'to' path is refused – reinforcing rather than merely repeating the schema.

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 pair (move or rename), the exact resource (one file/directory), and the scope constraint (authorized commander scope). It also implicitly separates itself from exza_copy_commander_file, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (exza_copy_commander_file) and the condition that selects it – preserving the source. It also flags the no-overwrite constraint, which affects whether to call this at all. It stops short of addressing commander-scope vs. home-scope moves (exza_move_home_file), so not a full 5.

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