layerfs_fs_mv

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

Annotations already disclose destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by revealing that a checkpoint is created as part of the operation and that the destination must not already exist (a failure mode). It omits whether the source is removed atomically, whether directories are supported, and what the checkpoint contains.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with the critical constraint second. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description covers the essential precondition and side effect but leaves the 'message'/checkpoint semantics and the expected response unexplained. Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry semantics: it maps 'branch' and 'to' (exact destination, must not exist) reasonably, and 'move a path' implies 'from'. However, the optional 'message' parameter is never explained, and path format constraints (absolute, leading slash) are only in the schema pattern.

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?

States a specific verb (move), resource (a path on a branch), and the side effect (checkpoint), which distinguishes it from sibling writes like layerfs_fs_cp, layerfs_fs_rm, or layerfs_fs_write. It never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'move a path' plus the precondition 'destination must not exist', which tells the agent when a call will fail. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., cp+rm vs this atomic move).

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