panelica_file_manager_post_v1_files_move

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

With no annotations and no behavioral details in the description, the agent cannot determine if this operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites destination), whether it supports cross-directory moves, or any error conditions. The description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise at two lines, but it sacrifices essential information. The HTTP method and category are redundant with the tool name and context. Value is minimal; it reads as a stub rather than a helpful guide.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, output schema, or parameter descriptions, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the required body structure, the destination (implied missing parameter), or any side effects. Agents would struggle to use this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% (one parameter), the description adds no meaning to the parameter 'source_paths'. The schema itself provides an empty description for the property, and the description does not clarify expected format (full paths, relative), array entries, or the mandatory destination path that is missing from the schema. The description fails to compensate for the poor schema.

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 'Move files' which is a clear verb+resource indicating the primary action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like copy or rename, as those are distinct actions but the description offers no context on what 'move' entails (e.g., cut and paste vs. copy then delete).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as copy or rename. No prerequisites, constraints, or recommended context are provided, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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