lb_move_path

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds the useful constraint that operations are limited to configured allowed directories. It does not disclose overwrite behavior, error cases, or path resolution, but the annotation coverage reduces the burden.

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 one focused sentence with no filler. The operation and the key boundary are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 destructive move operation with no output schema, the description lacks important safety and behavior details: destination-conflict handling, behavior when the source does not exist, and directory-versus-file semantics. The allowed-directory boundary is helpful but does not fully specify a safe invocation.

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%, and the schema only provides names and minLength. The description implies from_path is the source and to_path is the destination through 'move or rename', but it does not explain path formats, absolute versus relative paths, or whether to_path can be an existing directory.

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 an explicit verb phrase, 'Move or rename a file or directory', and adds the boundary 'within configured allowed directories'. This clearly identifies the operation and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like lb_read_text, lb_write_text, and lb_stat_path.

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 this tool is for relocation or renaming, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks exclusions such as 'for content edits use lb_write_text' or 'for inspection use lb_stat_path', so routing relies on inference.

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