move_file

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations, which only declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint. It reveals the verification order (destination verified before source removal), recoverability on interruption (not atomic), the size cap, and the SHA-256 integrity requirement. This gives the agent a clear picture of failure modes and operational constraints that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and key constraints; the second adds behavioral nuance; the third clarifies a limitation. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is efficient.

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?

The description covers the essential operational details for a move tool: prerequisites, constraints, behavior on interruption, and exclusion of directory moves. It does not explain the request_id field or potential error cases, but given the moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explicitly mentions the source SHA-256 (expected_sha256) and the absent destination, and implies the workspace ('within an rw workspace'). However, it does not explain the request_id parameter or the path parameter beyond context. It partially compensates but leaves some parameters underspecified.

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 action (move or rename) on a defined resource (one regular file) with explicit constraints (size limit, workspace type, SHA-256 requirement, absent destination). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like copy_file (which leaves source intact) and delete_file (which only removes).

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 implies when to use this tool (moving/renaming within an rw workspace with size and integrity constraints) but does not explicitly state though alternatives like copy_file would be more appropriate for preserving the source or for larger files. The 'No recursive directory moves' note hints at a limitation but doesn't name a sibling alternative.

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