Move a file into a chosen lane folder without overwriting it, and attach a short reason so the browser desk can show why it was sorted.
Move a file into a lane folder. Never overwrites. Give a short reason; the desk shows it to the person watching.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | ||
| lane | Yes | ||
| reason | No | why this file goes here, e.g. "sharpest of the burst" or "eyes closed" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation never overwrites and that the reason is visible to a person, but it does not explain permissions, failure behavior, whether the lane must exist, or what happens if the file is already in the lane.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the key safety property, then the parameter expectation. There is no wasted wording.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the main action and one important safety behavior. It remains incomplete about error conditions, lane existence requirements, and file identifier expectations.
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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds meaning for the reason parameter by saying it is short and shown to the person watching, and it clarifies that lane refers to a lane folder. It leaves file and lane formats largely undocumented beyond common-sense interpretation.
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 states a specific verb and resource: move a file into a lane folder. It is clear enough to distinguish from lane-management siblings such as create_lane and list_lanes, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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 the action itself: use this when a file should be placed into a lane folder. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over lane-management or file-description tools, nor about prerequisites such as whether the lane must already exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.