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 disclosing behavioral traits. It does warn that an existing destination will be overwritten, which is a critical destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose other relevant behaviors such as what happens on failure, whether it returns anything, permission requirements, or whether moving a directory moves its contents recursively. The overwrite warning is valuable but the disclosure is incomplete for a mutation tool without 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences. The first states the purpose directly, and the second highlights the critical overwrite warning, which is front-loaded and prominent. There is no fluff or redundant content, and every sentence 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 the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the most essential safety aspect (overwrite) but lacks detail on return values, error handling, and edge cases like moving directories. For an agent to use it safely, the overwrite warning is key, but other aspects like what happens on success are unspecified. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The src_path description is clear, and the dst_path description includes an important note about including the target name, which adds value beyond the schema. The tool description itself contributes no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles semantics well.

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 and resource: 'Moves or renames a file or directory.' It clearly indicates the operation's scope and is distinct from siblings like copy (duplicates) and remove (deletes), though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'move' inherently differentiates it, but the description doesn't call out sibling distinctions, so it falls short of a 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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'use copy for duplication' or 'use remove for deletion,' nor does it specify any prerequisites or conditions. The only additional instruction is a caution to verify the destination path, which is not usage selection guidance. The intended use is implied by the verb but not stated.

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