Move File

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies that the operation fails if the destination exists, works across directories, and requires source/destination within allowed directories. This goes beyond annotations by detailing failure conditions and constraints, though it lacks information on rate limits or auth needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers key points in three sentences: moving/renaming capabilities, failure condition, and directory constraints. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (file system operation with constraints), annotations cover safety aspects, and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It explains the operation's behavior, failure cases, and directory restrictions, but could benefit from mentioning prerequisites (e.g., permissions) or output details, though the output schema mitigates the latter.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds some meaning by explaining that 'source' and 'destination' are used for moving/renaming files and directories, and both must be within allowed directories. However, it does not detail parameter formats (e.g., path syntax) or constraints beyond what is implied, so it partially compensates for the low schema coverage but not fully.

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 specific verb ('move or rename') and resource ('files and directories'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_directory, edit_file, and write_file. It explicitly mentions moving between directories and renaming within the same directory, which clarifies the scope beyond just basic file movement.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: for moving or renaming files/directories, including cross-directory moves and simple renames. It mentions that the operation fails if the destination exists, which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like edit_file for content changes, leaving some room for improvement.

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