Move a file or directory

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds little beyond stating 'on the remote host'. It does not disclose overwrite behavior, cross-filesystem handling, or whether the move is recursive for directories. The description fails to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey.

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 short but redundant—the first sentence is essentially repeated in the second with a minor addition. It could be condensed into a single sentence without loss of meaning. It is not overly verbose, but the repetition wastes words.

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 is severely incomplete for a file operation with three parameters and no output schema. It omits any details about return values, error handling, required session context, or edge cases (e.g., what happens if the destination exists). An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly with the given information.

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 the description does not explain the parameters at all. newPath, oldPath, and sessionId are not described, leaving the agent to infer their meanings from names alone. With no schema descriptions, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 clear verb ('Move') and resource ('file or directory'), which is not a tautology. However, it repeats the same idea in two sentences and does not explicitly distinguish from similar siblings like copy or rename, though the verb itself implies distinct operation.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like copy_file_directory or rename_file_directory. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios that would make this the preferred choice.

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