File Operations

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical behavioral context: auto-updates all imports, handles dynamic imports/mocks/re-exports, and provides speed and scope metrics (<1s, 47 refs across 12 files). No contradiction with annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences plus a usage line, front-loaded with the most important info. Every sentence adds unique value—function, contrast with alternatives, and explicit usage advice—with no 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?

Given 7 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the primary use case and performance but omits details on parameter combinations (e.g., when to use sourcePath+name vs files+targetFolder) and the preview parameter. It addresses key behavioral aspects but lacks full completeness for a tool of moderate complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 7 parameters, the description should compensate but only indirectly hints at parameters (e.g., 'Rename/move' implies operation, '47 refs' suggests batch moves). It does not explicitly describe individual parameters or their relationships, leaving gaps.

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 explicitly states the tool renames/moves TypeScript files and auto-updates imports, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from Edit/Bash by highlighting import-breaking behavior, and the performance metrics add clarity.

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 includes a clear directive: 'Use when: Renaming/moving TS/JS files. Always use this, not mv/Edit.' It also contrasts with Edit/Bash, explaining when not to use those alternatives, making the usage context explicit.

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