move_file

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

Annotations already signal destructive behavior, and the description adds a critical behavioral detail: it fails if the destination exists, meaning no overwrite. This is valuable context beyond annotations. It also clarifies it operates on both files and directories.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence about parameters is redundant with the schema but does not significantly bloat the description.

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 simple two-parameter move tool, the description covers the core operation, the failure mode, and the applicable resources. With annotations already providing destructive hints and an output schema available, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 should compensate for the bare schema. However, it merely repeats 'source (required), destination (required)' without explaining the meaning of each parameter, such as source being the current path and destination being the target path. The parameter names are self-evident, but the description adds no semantic depth.

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/rename') with a clear resource ('files/directories') and explicitly states a key constraint ('fails if destination exists'), which distinguishes it from siblings like copy_file and delete_file.

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 usage by its clear verb and resource, but does not explicitly reference alternatives or when-not-to-use. It mentions a failure condition but not when to choose this over copy_file or write_file.

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