move_project_artifact

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the basic action without clarifying whether the move is destructive, if it preserves artifact history, or what permissions are required. This is insufficient for safe use.

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 extremely concise at one line, with no wasted words. The category prefix '[ARTIFACT TOOLS]' provides context. However, it might be too brief, borderline under-specified, but still efficient.

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 the operation complexity (move/rename), more context is needed: what happens if destination exists, whether it works across folders, and if it logs history. The output schema exists but the description alone does not provide enough for an agent to use it correctly without risk.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), but the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond those basic labels. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not improve parameter understanding.

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 action: 'Moves or renames an artifact.' It uses a specific verb ('Moves or renames') and resource ('artifact'), and among sibling tools, no other tool performs this exact function, ensuring clear differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like copying, deleting, or reading artifacts. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios.

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