move_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses reversibility ('Recuperable con file_history + restore_file'), a side effect on inbound path links that the agent must fix, and hard exclusions. It omits what happens if dst already exists (overwrite vs. error) and whether parent directories are auto-created — the main gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and an example before any caveats, and every clause carries real information. The protected-file enumeration is long but earns its place since there is no enum in the schema; the final sentence is something of a run-on that could be split for scannability.

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-param mutation tool with no annotations but an output schema (so return shape needn't be described), the description covers purpose, undo path, exclusions, and required post-move cleanup. Only the dst-collision behavior is left implicit, which is a minor omission.

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% and both params are bare strings, so the description must compensate. The example move_file("idea.md", "projects/idea.md") does convey that both are vault-relative paths and that dst includes the new folder/name, but it never states path resolution rules explicitly.

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 pair (move/rename) on a specific resource (a vault note) and immediately grounds it with a concrete call example showing src and dst. It also delineates scope by listing what it will NOT move (BRAIN.md, memory/, knowledge/sources/, folders), which separates it from sibling writers like write_file or delete_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?

Clear about when it applies and, importantly, when it does not: protected files and folders are excluded because 'los maneja brain'. It also gives a required follow-up action (update path-based links in other notes). It stops short of naming a sibling to use instead for the excluded cases, which keeps it from a 5.

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