e2b_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral impact. It only says 'Move or rename' which implies a mutating filesystem operation, but it doesn't mention whether it overwrites destinations, error behavior (e.g., if source doesn't exist), permission requirements, or side effects. This is minimal for a mutation tool and leaves the agent guessing about safety and failure modes.

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 a single, well-formed sentence with no redundant words. It states the core operation and resource clearly. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, ideal for quick comprehension.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, no annotations, and a moderate number of parameters (6, with 3 required), the description is too sparse. It does not specify return values, error handling, overwrite behavior, or any operational caveats. An agent would need to infer many critical details to use the tool reliably.

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 coverage is 50% (sandboxId, accessToken, port have descriptions; source, destination, username do not). The description does not explain what source and destination represent or their format. It only hints at the action, not the parameter details. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 clear verb ('Move or rename') and a specific resource ('a file/directory in a sandbox'). It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like list, create, remove, or read, so an agent can tell what operation it performs 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify whether this should be used for moving within the sandbox vs. uploading/downloading, or what happens with overwrites. An agent has to infer usage from the tool name and parameter names.

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