efs_move

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

The description discloses an automatic backup behavior, a meaningful side effect not present in the schema. With no annotations, this adds useful transparency, though it does not cover overwrite behavior or permission requirements.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the operation and scope. There is no fluff; every phrase adds value: action, resource, scope, and backup side effect.

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 simple move operation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the key backup side effect. Missing details like overwrite semantics or return values are not critical for basic use, so it is fairly complete.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions ('Source path', 'Destination path'). The tool description adds context that it works across directories, enriching parameter meaning, but not significantly beyond the high schema coverage baseline of 3.

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 action (move or rename) and resource (file or directory), with scope ('Works across directories'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like efs_write, efs_delete, and efs_read, meeting the 5-level criterion.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The description implies use for moving/renaming but does not state when to prefer it over other efs operations. The context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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