colab_fs_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable note about checking source/destination after response loss before retrying, implying non-idempotency and a need for verification. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral traits like permissions, atomicity, or whether the operation is destructive to the source (beyond what 'move' implies).

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The first states the core action, and the second provides a targeted safety tip. No wasted words, front-loaded purpose.

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 simple move operation with fully described parameters, the description is minimally viable. It doesn't explain return values (no output schema exists), but the schema covers paths and overwrite behavior. The retry note adds helpful context, yet the description could be more complete by explicitly stating the effect (e.g., source is removed) or typical use cases.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters (source, destination, session, overwrite) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a path') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling filesystem tools like colab_fs_list, colab_fs_stat, and colab_fs_remove. No other tool in the list performs a move, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use move instead of read/write or transfer tools). The only usage-related note is about verifying state after response loss, which is a safety tip, not a comparison with alternatives.

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