move_path

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: 'Ha a cel mar letezik, megerositest ker' (if the target already exists, it asks for confirmation). This clarifies that the tool will not silently overwrite and that confirmation is part of the flow. The annotations already establish destructiveness, so the additional confirmation detail is valuable.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns section is minimal and somewhat redundant with the schema, but it does not waste much space. Overall structure is clean and scannable.

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 destructive move/rename tool, the description covers the basic operation and confirmation behavior, while annotations and output schema cover safety and return shape. However, it lacks usage context and parameter depth, so an agent is left to infer important details like remote host behavior and response_format choices.

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 reported as 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only lists parameter names (source, destination, host) without explaining their meaning or interactions. It also omits response_format entirely. The nested schema has descriptions, but the top-level params wrapper is undocumented and the description adds little beyond names.

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 operation: 'Fajl / konyvtar atnevezese vagy athelyezese' (rename or move a file/directory). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_path, write_file, and make_dir, so an agent can tell which tool handles relocation/renaming.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_path, write_file, or edit_file. The purpose is implied by the description, but no conditions, exclusions, or recommended alternatives are provided.

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