ecp_files_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the move overwrites existing files, whether it works across filesystems, whether the destination must be a directory, or what happens on failure. The description only states the action without any behavioral context.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful detail, though conciseness itself is appropriate.

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 file operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. An agent needs to know whether destination is a directory or full path, whether overwrite is allowed, and what the return value indicates. The sibling set includes move_multiple, copy, and rename, so more context is needed to select and invoke this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It does not explain what file_path and destination mean beyond their names, nor does it clarify whether destination is a directory or a new full path. The description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 states a clear verb ('Move') and resource ('one file/folder') with a destination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ecp_files_copy and ecp_files_move_multiple by specifying 'one' file/folder, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus ecp_files_move_multiple or ecp_files_copy. The description implies a single-item move but doesn't state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from sibling names.

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