move-asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: reference-aware refusal by default, options to relink or force, and the requirement for MOLTEN_WEBDAV_PASSWORD. The phrase 'Plane B (file channel, write)' adds some context. It doesn't describe return values or error states, but given the tool's nature, the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: it starts with the tool's purpose and channel, then explains the default behavior, then the options, then a restriction and a requirement. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 that there is no output schema, the description could be more complete by mentioning return values (e.g., success message, updated path). However, it covers purpose, usage, parameters, and constraints well enough for an agent to invoke correctly. The absence of output info is a minor gap.

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 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it explains the overall WebDAV context, reference-aware behavior, and the environment variable requirement. It clarifies that force bypasses both reference checks and bridge-down scenarios, and that relink rewrites references. This context helps an agent use parameters correctly.

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 action ('Move/rename'), the resource ('file under the Foundry `Data/` root'), and the protocol ('over WebDAV'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like copy-asset and relink-asset by specifying the reference-aware behavior and the context of WebDAV.

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 explains when to use this tool by detailing its reference-aware behavior: by default it refuses if references exist, and it provides options (relink:true to move and rewrite references, force:true to move without relinking). It also notes that it refuses live world-DB paths. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the conditional logic is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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