move_symbol

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful beyond-annotation context that imports in all call sites are rewritten, but it omits reversibility, failure modes, and whether a checkpoint is advisable before this destructive move.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the side effect appended. No filler, no redundancy.

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 destructive cross-file refactor with no output schema, the description covers the core mutation and its import-rewriting effect, but says nothing about what happens when the symbol is ambiguous, when the target already contains a conflicting symbol, or what the agent gets back.

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 symbol, project, target_file, and create_if_missing are all already documented. The description adds no syntax, path-format, or default detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Move a symbol to a different file') plus the key side effect of rewriting imports at all call sites. It contrasts implicitly with siblings like replace_symbol_source or edit_lines_in_symbol, though it never names them, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 description conveys implied usage (a refactor that relocates a symbol and fixes call sites), but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as replace_symbol_source or find_impacted_test_files. An agent must infer the context from the action itself.

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