Moves a file or directory to a target folder within the same writable storage root.
Move a file or directory to another directory in the same writable SAF root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| rootId | Yes | ||
| targetDirectory | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, destructive operation, so the main burden on the description is additive context. It adds the useful constraint that moves stay within the same writable SAF root, but it does not explain overwrite behavior, what happens when targetDirectory is omitted, or whether the source is removed only after a successful move.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the resource, and the key root constraint are all stated directly.
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, three-parameter tool with no output schema, this is under-specified. An agent cannot determine the meaning of the optional targetDirectory default or the path format, and the description does not mention return values or failure behavior, leaving important operational details to guesswork.
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 missing parameter explanations. It loosely suggests that rootId identifies the SAF root and that targetDirectory is the destination, but it does not clarify the expected format of path, what targetDirectory defaults to when empty, or how a move within the same directory is handled.
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 identifies the action ('move'), the resource ('file or directory'), and the destination constraint ('another directory in the same writable SAF root'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like android_file_copy or android_file_rename, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as copy, rename, or delete. The only scoping hint is the 'same writable SAF root' restriction, which is a constraint rather than selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.