move_file

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

The annotations already mark this tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral context: the operation is limited to regular files and requires the destination to not already exist. The word 'move' reasonably implies the source disappears after success, although the description does not explicitly spell that out.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the critical destination constraint is given immediately after. Every word 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?

For a two-parameter tool with a clear schema and destructive annotations, the description is mostly complete: it names the operation, the scope, and the key precondition. It does not explicitly describe what happens to the source file after a successful move or how failures are reported, but these are relatively minor given the simple semantics and the existing schema/annotations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-level meaning beyond the schema by specifying that 'The destination must not already exist,' which is an important overwrite/conflict constraint not present in the destination property description. This supplemental constraint justifies a score above baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Move a regular file to a new workspace-relative path.' It also adds scope by restricting to regular files and requiring a destination that does not already exist. However, it does not explicitly differentiate move_file from sibling tools like copy_file or rename_file, 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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer move_file over alternatives such as copy_file, rename_file, or delete_file. The only usage-related information is the constraint 'The destination must not already exist,' which is a precondition rather than a selection criterion. An agent is left to infer how this tool fits among the file-operation siblings.

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