fs_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers key behaviors: the FSGUARD_ROOT constraint, overwriting behavior for existing destination files, and failure on existing destination directories. These are critical edge cases. It doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens if the source doesn't exist, but the provided details adequately outline the operation's behavior for typical use.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes all necessary behavioral constraints without redundancy. Every sentence adds value—there is no filler or repetition. This is exemplary conciseness for a tool definition.

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's complexity (move/rename with edge cases), the schema has no descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: the root constraint, overwrite behavior, and directory failure. It omits minor details like behavior when source is missing or return value expectations, but the absence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0% (no per-parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining both parameters must resolve within FSGUARD_ROOT and describes destination behavior. However, it does not explicitly define source as the current path and destination as the target path, nor does it specify path format (absolute vs relative). The added semantics are helpful but not fully comprehensive for a 0% coverage case.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb+resource combination: 'Move or rename a file/directory.' This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like fs_read, fs_write, fs_list, and fs_search, which cover other file operations. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (moving/renaming within FSGUARD_ROOT) and includes specific edge-case behaviors (overwrite on existing file, failure on existing directory). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would push it to a 5. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide this is the right operation among file tools.

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