move_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that parent directories are created automatically for the destination, but omits critical mutation behaviors: whether an existing destination is overwritten, what happens if the source is missing, or whether the operation is atomic.

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 two compact sentences plus a clean Args block, front-loading the action with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter move tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers parameter meaning and one behavioral detail. However, it leaves out important mutation edge cases (overwrite behavior, error conditions) that an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for both parameters: source is an existing file path relative to the workspace root, and destination is the new path with parent directories created automatically. This effectively documents the parameters beyond their basic types.

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 (move/rename) and resource (file) within the workspace, clearly distinguishing it from pure copy or delete operations. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like copy_file or delete_file, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use move_file versus alternatives such as copy_file, write_file, or delete_file. The description only states the operation, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario without any context or exclusions.

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