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

The description adds a key behavioral detail: it fails with destination_exists unless overwrite is set. This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false. It does not disclose all behaviors (e.g., lock handling, version conflicts), but those are covered by parameter descriptions.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose (rename or move) and immediately states a critical failure condition. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 rich schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the core purpose and a key failure mode. It does not explain return values or side effects like activity logging, but these are not essential given the context. The tool is straightforward and the description is complete enough for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all six parameters, including overwrite, workspace, and override_lock. The description's mention of 'unless overwrite is set' adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema's parameter documentation. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool renames or moves a file to a new path, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete, edit, and write by focusing on relocation rather than content modification. The failure condition adds further specificity.

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 implies use for renaming or moving files but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of when to prefer this tool over write or delete. The usage context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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