move_dir

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a mutation operation. The description adds that it moves files/folders, which implies destructive behavior, but doesn't elaborate on permissions needed, error handling, or rate limits. It doesn't contradict annotations, and adds minimal context beyond them, such as the return format, but could be more informative.

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 structured with a brief introductory sentence followed by Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the formatting includes extra whitespace, and some sentences could be more tightly written, but overall it's efficient and well-organized.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, annotations for destructive behavior, and an output schema, the description does a good job. It explains the parameters, mentions the return type, and aligns with annotations. For a move operation, it's reasonably complete, though it could add more on error cases or usage constraints.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly defines path1 as the source path and path2 as the destination path, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic titles. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail path formats or constraints.

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 the resource 'a file or folder', specifying it moves from one path to another. It distinguishes from siblings like 'rename_file' by focusing on moving rather than renaming, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'create_dir' or 'remove_file'. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated.

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 includes 'Use instead of terminal', which provides some context for when to use this tool over manual terminal commands. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus sibling tools like 'rename_file' or 'remove_file', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not fully detailed.

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