panelica_file_manager_post_v1_files_move

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the required scope 'files:write' and explicitly says 'Mutating: changes server state,' which is useful auth context beyond the annotations. It does not, however, disclose what happens on destination collision or whether source files are removed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by short, scannable metadata lines. Minor redundancy exists (Category repeats the file-manager namespace), but there is no wasted prose.

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 mutating operation with no output schema and nested parameters, the description is not complete enough for safe invocation: it omits destination-overwrite behavior, path interpretation, and any guidance on result/error expectations. The endpoint, scope, and mutating flag provide a foundation but leave material gaps.

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 reported as 100% and the top-level 'body' parameter has a description, so the baseline is met, but the description itself adds no parameter meaning. The nested fields source_paths and destination_path have empty descriptions, leaving their path semantics to inference.

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 opens with 'Move files', a concrete verb and resource, and the HTTP line identifies the endpoint. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate the operation from sibling file tools such as copy or rename.

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 context (category, scopes, mutating) but no guidance on when to move instead of copy, rename, upload, or delete. There are no exclusions or alternative-recommendation signals for the agent.

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