move_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value by disclosing collision protection, undo tracking, and that the target directory is created if absent. However, it does not say what collision protection actually does (abort, fail, auto-rename, or overwrite), whether permissions are required, or how the undo record is keyed for undo_operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the behavioral traits that matter. No filler, though the second sentence could have been used to resolve the collision behavior instead of only directory creation.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves the outcome underspecified. An agent still cannot predict what happens on a filename collision or what the tool returns, which matters for a filesystem-moving operation.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The phrase "Creates target directory if needed" adds genuine behavioral meaning for targetDirectory beyond the schema's "destination folder," but filePath gets no additional semantic detail.

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+resource ("Move a document") and scopes it to "a different directory," which separates it from rename_document and smart_rename in the sibling list. It never names an alternative explicitly, but the move-vs-rename distinction is inferable from the wording.

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 deduces this is for relocating a file rather than renaming or analyzing it. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to undo_operation for reversal, and nothing tells the agent to prefer batch_organize for multi-file moves.

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