server_file_move

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the meaningful safety behavior: a confirmation gate and non-overwriting default when the destination exists. It omits whether the move crosses hosts/filesystems, what privileges are required, and whether as_root or host selection changes behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the gating requirement (confirm=true) is stated before the optional override behavior. Every sentence carries information an agent needs before calling.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the two risk-relevant flags are covered. However, for a 6-parameter call with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the undocumented host and as_root parameters and the absence of any permission or path-format context leave real gaps.

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 there are 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains only confirm and overwrite; source, destination, host, and as_root are left entirely to bare titles, with no path format, host-scope, or privilege guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb pair and resource ('Move or rename a file or folder') and scopes it to the Docker host, which is enough to separate it from server_file_write, server_file_edit, or server_file_delete. It doesn't name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states a hard prerequisite ('Needs confirm=true') and gives a clear conditional rule for when to set overwrite=true versus leaving an existing destination untouched. It never says when to choose a different tool (e.g. server_file_write to replace content), so it lacks the explicit alternatives that a 5 requires.

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