move_file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it is a destructive operation. The description adds the return type (confirmation message) but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting or handling of existing destinations. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the purpose.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then formatted parameter explanations, then a return statement. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids filler. Every part contributes value.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the parameters and return value. It does not mention error cases or behavior when the destination exists, but given the availability of an output schema and the straightforward nature of move/rename, the description is nearly complete.

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 provides no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description fully carries the burden. It explains 'source' as the current path and 'destination' as the new path, with concrete examples. This clearly maps to the two required parameters and exceeds what the schema alone offers.

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 tool moves or renames a file/directory in Nextcloud. The verb 'move' or 'rename' and resource are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like copy_file and delete_file. The examples reinforce the action without ambiguity.

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 implies usage by stating the action, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as copy_file or delete_file. No when-not-to-use guidance is given, so an agent must infer the distinction from the verb alone.

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