Move or rename files and directories directly on an Android device using ADB. Specify source and destination paths to reorganize storage without transferring to a computer.
Fajl/konyvtar athelyezese vagy atnevezese az eszkozon (helyben, nem a gepre).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serial | No | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| destination | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states that the operation is local and not a computer transfer; it omits overwrite semantics, behavior when destination exists, directory recursion, permissions, or reversibility. For a mutating filesystem operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
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 a single front-loaded sentence that communicates the core operation and the key scope qualifier without any wasted words.
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, the description is too sparse: it lacks critical edge-case behavior such as overwrite handling, directory recursion, or failure modes, and since no annotations exist, an agent has no safety or behavioral baseline. The output schema exists but the description does not reference expected results, leaving the definition incomplete for reliable invocation.
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?
Input schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of source, destination, or serial formats. The parameter names 'source' and 'destination' are self-evident, but the description does not confirm expected path conventions, whether destination can be a directory, or the role of the optional serial parameter, so semantics remain under-specified.
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 Hungarian description states a specific action — moving or renaming a file/directory on the device — and explicitly excludes transfer to a computer, distinguishing it from file-transfer siblings like pull_file and push_file.
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 parenthetical '(helyben, nem a gepre)' clarifies that this tool is for on-device operations rather than transferring files to/from a PC, which gives the agent a clear context signal for when to use it over pull_file/push_file. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when rename versus move is intended, leaving some inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.