move_entityMove a document, file, or folder to a new location within an Overleaf project by specifying the project ID, current path, and destination path.
Move a document, file, or folder to a different folder in the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| destinationPath | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal that this is mutating, non-destructive, and idempotent, so the description carries little behavioral burden. However, it adds no operational context such as whether the source path is removed, what happens if the destination already exists, or whether moving a folder moves its contents recursively.
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 clear sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. Every part earns its place.
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 three undocumented required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the tool is under-specified. An agent cannot reliably determine edge-case behavior, success/failure signals, or conflict handling from this description alone.
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, but it only weakly maps to parameters: path is the item to move, destinationPath is the target folder, and projectId is the project. It does not explain path format, relative vs absolute paths, or whether the destination folder must pre-exist.
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 specific verb (Move), the resource (document, file, or folder), and the destination (different folder in the project). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_entity, write_file, upload_file, and create_folder.
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 usage context is implied but not explicit: the operation is for relocating existing entities within a project. It does not mention when not to use it or point to any alternative, such as using write_file/upload_file for creating content or delete_entity for removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.