Desktop Commander MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the operation's behavior (move/rename, fails if destination exists, works across/allowed directories), but lacks details on permissions needed, error handling beyond failure, rate limits, or what the response looks like. It's adequate but has gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured with four sentences that each add value: purpose statement, capability details, failure condition, and constraints. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation, constraints, and parameter roles, but lacks details on permissions, error messages, return values, or interaction with siblings like 'edit_file' for content changes. It's sufficient for basic use but could be more comprehensive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context about parameters: 'source' and 'destination' are explained as paths for moving/renaming, with constraints (must be within allowed directories, destination existence causes failure). This provides good semantic understanding beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't specify path formats or examples.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('move or rename files and directories') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_directory', 'edit_file', and 'write_file' by focusing on relocation/renaming operations. It explicitly mentions moving between directories and renaming within the same directory, providing clear differentiation.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (moving/renaming files/directories, across directories or within same directory) and mentions a key constraint (fails if destination exists). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings like 'rename_file' if such existed, though it distinguishes from other file operations.

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