move_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses reversibility, protected-path exclusions, and a link-integrity side effect. It does not cover overwrite/collision behavior if dst already exists, so it is not fully complete.

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 primary action and example are front-loaded, followed by tightly packed clauses on recovery, exclusions, and link caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 2-param mutation tool, the description covers reversibility, protected resources, and link side effects, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Only collision/overwrite handling is unaddressed.

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% and neither parameter has a description, so the schema alone does not explain src/dst. The example ("idea.md" -> "projects/idea.md") usefully conveys path formatting and the source/destination roles, but overwrite behavior and whether dst is a full path or directory are left unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Mueve o renombra una nota del vault") and backs it with a concrete example call, so the agent understands both move and rename semantics. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like write_file, delete_file, and str_replace_file.

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?

Explicitly names the recovery path (file_history + restore_file), lists protected paths that must NOT be moved (BRAIN.md, profile.md, memory/, knowledge/sources/), and adds a caveat about updating path-based links. It routes the agent to alternatives and states when-not conditions.

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