move

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the operation and arguments, without disclosing behaviors such as overwriting, error conditions, permission requirements, or whether the move is atomic. This lack of detail limits the agent's ability to predict side effects.

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 concise and to the point, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear argument list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no superfluous content.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers the core function and parameters. However, it lacks details about edge cases such as what happens if the destination exists, whether it can overwrite, or any error handling. Given an output schema exists, return values are covered, but behavioral completeness is still limited.

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 must compensate. It adds that 'source' and 'destination' are 'Relative source path' and 'Relative destination path', which gives some meaning beyond the schema titles. However, it does not clarify what the paths are relative to or mention that renaming is achieved via destination, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Move or rename') and the resource ('a file or directory on WD MyCloud'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like copy, delete, and read_file because it specifically addresses relocating or renaming items.

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 naming the operation (move/rename), which clearly indicates when this tool should be used compared to siblings like copy or delete. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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