mover_elementoMove a file or folder by specifying source and destination paths, enabling cut-and-paste or rename operations within an authorized workspace.
Mueve un elemento a una ruta nueva. Sirve para cortar y pegar o para renombrar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| origen | Yes | ||
| destino | Yes | ||
| confirmar | No | ||
| aprobacion_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the move/rename framing and says nothing about overwriting an existing destination, undoability, or the approval flow implied by the schema. Modest added value over annotations.
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 core action and then the use cases. No filler, nothing to cut.
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 destructive mutation with no output schema and 4 undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It omits overwrite behavior, failure modes, and the meaning of the approval parameter, leaving an agent unable to invoke it confidently.
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% for 4 parameters. 'origen' and 'destino' are loosely implied by 'a una ruta nueva', but 'confirmar' and especially 'aprobacion_id' (a UUID suggesting a confirmation/approval workflow) are completely unexplained in both schema and description. A destructive tool hiding an approval parameter is a real 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 clear verb+resource ('Mueve un elemento a una ruta nueva') and adds the two practical use cases (cut-and-paste, rename). It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling copiar_elemento, so it stops short of 5.
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 mention of 'cortar y pegar o renombrar' implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit routing guidance such as when to use this instead of copiar_elemento or eliminar_archivo. Usage is implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.