vault_move_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful mutation side effect (links are updated), which is genuine value. It omits other behavioral facts that matter for a write operation: whether an existing file at the destination is overwritten, whether the destination folder must already exist, and whether the move is reversible.

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?

Short, front-loaded, zero filler: the first line states the action and side effect, then each parameter gets one compact line with a format example. The line-broken parameter block is slightly untidy but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the two-parameter surface is small. For an unannotated mutation tool, though, the definition should mention overwrite/collision behavior and destination-existence requirements before an agent invokes it.

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% — both properties have only a title — so the description must compensate, and it does for both parameters.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Move (and/or rename) a file in the vault') plus a distinctive side effect ('updating links'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling vault_rename, and in fact the parenthetical 'and/or rename' overlaps with that sibling without resolving which to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for relocating a file. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no guidance on choosing between this, vault_rename, and vault_move_folder. The destination-format explanation implicitly distinguishes a folder move from a rename, but the agent must do that inference itself.

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