moveRenameFileMove or rename a local file under the configured current directory by giving source and destination paths. Use it to reorganize files within a sandboxed workspace.
Move or rename a local file beneath the configured current directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| destination | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the sandbox constraint ('beneath the configured current directory'), but says nothing about overwrite behavior when the destination exists, atomicity, failure modes, or permissions.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a destructive mutation with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no usage guidance, the description leaves key call-shaping questions (overwrite, path resolution) unanswered.
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% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains path format, whether paths are relative to the current directory, or whether directories are acceptable as source or destination.
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 pair (move/rename) and resource (local file), so an agent knows it relocates rather than copies or deletes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling copyFile, which is the most confusable neighbor.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as copyFile or deleteFile, and no prerequisites. The only contextual hint is the implicit 'local file' scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.