move_path

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, and the description adds real context beyond them: never overwrites, destination parent must exist, and the two-step confirm/approve workflow. It does not disclose atomicity or partial-failure behavior for a batch of up to 100 moves, which matters for a destructive multi-item call.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose first, then the batching/confirmation protocol, then the safety constraints. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 batch mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers purpose, workflow, and key safety constraints. The remaining gap is failure semantics — whether a partially failing batch applies nothing or some moves — which an agent planning a 100-item move would want to know.

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 coverage is 60% and the schema itself documents confirm and the from/to semantics, so the description's confirmation guidance largely restates it. desk_id, project_id, and desk_url are not explained in the description, leaving the identifier selection (which the schema says should come from the user's copied link) to the schema alone.

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 with scope: 'Rename or move files/folders on a project disk.' An agent can tell this apart from delete_path or create_folder, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with one.

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?

Gives clear context for use: batch every move for a request into one call, call without confirm first to obtain the approval list, then repeat with confirm=true. It also states a prerequisite (destination parent must exist). It falls short of naming when to use an alternative (e.g., create_folder plus move) but covers the main flow.

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