Move a path in the whole world

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it checks permissions before writing, runs inside Foundry, matches path boundaries, and handles percent-encoded spellings. This informs the agent about safety and matching semantics that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scope, matching semantics, runtime context, and safety guidance. The potentially long enumeration of document types is necessary for clarity and is front-loaded after the core purpose.

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 complex, destructive bulk operation with no output schema, the description covers the workflow (dryRun first), safety (permission checks), and matching behavior, which is largely sufficient. The one gap is that it tells the agent to 'read the report' without describing what the report contains or how to interpret it, leaving some uncertainty for an agent navigating the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the 'from' prefix matches ('up to a path boundary', percent-encoded spellings) and warns that partial collections cause broken references, which goes beyond the schema's simple parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('replace their old path prefix') on a specific resource ('every document of the world') and enumerates all affected document types, making the purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to distinguish itself, so it misses the top score by the rubric's letter, though the enumerated scope effectively differentiates it from tools like 'find-file-references' or 'journal-rewrite-images'.

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 clear usage context: use it after moving files on disk, and it strongly advises running dryRun first and reading the report. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., find-file-references for locating references without rewriting), so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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