Relocate files or folders to a destination folder on a Synology NAS, removing originals after transfer. Set overwrite to true to replace existing files.
Move files or folders to a new location. Source files are REMOVED after transfer. Set overwrite=true to replace existing files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| dest_folder | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real value on top by spelling out WHAT is destroyed ('source files are REMOVED after transfer') and how conflicts are handled via overwrite=true. It does not address partial-failure behavior or cross-location edge cases, so it stops short of a 5.
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, zero filler, with the destructive consequence front-loaded before the optional-flag guidance. 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the destructive semantics plus overwrite behavior are covered. Only error handling and permission expectations are missing for a mutation tool.
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 carry the load. It clarifies overwrite=true (replace existing files) and implies dest_folder is the destination, but paths and dest_folder formats/constraints are undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
Specific verb (move) plus resource (files or folders) and stated destination scope. The note that sources are removed implicitly separates it from sibling copy_files, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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 mechanics: use it when relocating items and you accept source deletion. The overwrite=true instruction gives operational guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus copy_files/rename, nor any stated prerequisite or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.