Remove old Build Planner files and guides

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

With only destructiveHint=true available, the description adds substantial context the annotation cannot: nothing is deleted, files go to Documents/PoE2 Build Planner/removed/<date>, and the move is reversible. It also discloses the important guard that only files this tool created are touched. This exceeds the annotation's safety profile without contradicting it (moving files out of active use is reasonably 'destructive' even though reversible).

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, followed by the reversibility guarantee, the required player confirmation, and the input source. No sentence is redundant.

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 two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is affected, where items go, that the action is reversible, and the prerequisite of asking the player and sourcing names from list_builds.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by stating that the file and folder names originate from list_builds. It does not add format or validation detail beyond that, so it improves on the schema rather than merely restating it.

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 uses a specific verb (move) on a specific resource (.build files and guide folders), and scopes it tightly with '(only ones this tool made)' and the destination path. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like create_build_guide by explaining that it relocates rather than deletes or creates.

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?

It gives a precondition ('Ask the player first and name exactly what will be moved') and points to the sibling that supplies input ('File and folder names come from list_builds'). It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or naming a reverse (restore) tool, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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