Mover / renomear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait: the operation is subject to approval. However, it omits important behavioral details such as what happens on destination conflicts, whether the source is removed after moving, how approval is granted, and what errors may occur.

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 compact two-clause sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the approval caveat at the end. 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?

This is a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the approval flow, the confirm_token parameter, path constraints, or return/error behavior. The core purpose is covered, but an agent would not have enough information to invoke it reliably in non-trivial cases.

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 barely does. The from/to roles are inferable from the move/rename wording, yet the description never explains path formatting, required scope, or the purpose of confirm_token, which is especially problematic because the approval caveat hints at it but never connects it to the parameter.

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: moving or renaming a file/folder within the workspace. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like write_file, edit_file, and make_dir, all of which perform different operations.

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 context is reasonably clear: use this tool when a file/folder needs to be moved or renamed inside the workspace. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no discussion of when the approval requirement activates beyond a brief warning.

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