MoveResource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. '移动' (move) implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, what happens to dependencies, error conditions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient phrase in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what '移动' (move) entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, error conditions, or how this differs from other move operations. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but behavioral context is critically lacking for a tool that modifies resources.

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 100%, so all three parameters (ProjectId, Id, Path) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '移动数据开发文件资源路径' clearly states the action (移动/move) and resource (数据开发文件资源路径/data development file resource path) in Chinese. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like MoveFunction, MoveNode, or MoveWorkflowDefinition, which all perform similar 'move' operations on different resource types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple 'Move' tools in the sibling list (MoveFunction, MoveNode, MoveWorkflowDefinition), but the description doesn't indicate this is specifically for 'Resource' objects or differentiate from those other move operations. No context about prerequisites or constraints is mentioned.

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