move

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that: it refuses existing targets (no silent overwrite) and verifies both paths after the operation, which tells the agent what success means and how failures surface.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then the highest-risk parameter clarification, then the behavioral guarantees. No repetition of the tool name and nothing extraneous.

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 description still notes that paths are verified afterward. Combined with the destination semantics and overwrite refusal, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only path-format details are missing.

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 must carry the burden, and it does for the critical one: destination is the complete NEW path including the name, not just a parent directory. Source is left unstated but is self-evident; a brief note on path format (absolute vs relative, separators) would close the remaining gap.

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 Netdisk file/folder), making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like rename or copy, but the verb plus the destination semantics do most of that work implicitly.

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 infers this is the tool for relocating an item to a new path, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over rename or copy, nor any prerequisite/authentication guidance. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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