move_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the symbol is moved and imports updated, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, error handling, or behavior when target file exists). The create_if_missing parameter hints at file creation but is not mentioned in the description.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and a key side-effect. It is appropriately concise, though slightly more detail could be added without losing efficiency.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, performs a potentially destructive operation (moving a symbol can break references), and lacks both annotations and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits important context like success/error behavior, whether the operation is undoable, and how the tool handles conflicts or missing prerequisites.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is covered in the parameter descriptions; it merely restates the tool's purpose. The interaction between parameters (e.g., how create_if_missing affects behavior) is not clarified.

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 clearly states the action (Move), resource (a symbol to a different file), and a key side-effect (updating imports in all call sites). It effectively differentiates from siblings like replace_symbol_source or edit_lines_in_symbol.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., symbol must exist, project must be active) or exclusions. With many sibling tools, the lack of usage context is a notable gap.

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