File Move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that this is a write operation (写操作); it does not say whether an existing file at dest_dir is overwritten, whether moves across volumes are supported, whether it is reversible/trash-backed, or what permissions are required.

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 short sentence with the verb and write-operation qualifier front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a 6-parameter mutation tool, but there is 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 destructive write tool with no annotations, 6 parameters, and a sibling copy/rename/trash family, the description omits overwrite semantics, failure modes, and any routing to alternatives. The existence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but the behavioral gaps remain significant.

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 src, dest_dir, host, port, scheme, and profile are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond the schema (it does not explain path format, relative vs absolute paths, or how host/profile select a session), 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 (移动/move) and resource (文件/file) plus the target (目标目录), so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as file_copy, file_rename, or file_trash_restore, so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives; there is no hint that file_copy should be used instead when the source must be preserved, or that file_rename handles in-place renames. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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