java_move_class

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

The description mentions using OpenRewrite, implying mutation, and 'update all imports' provides some behavioral insight. However, it lacks disclosure on destructiveness, reversibility, performance, or error conditions. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and key detail (OpenRewrite). No unnecessary words, making it highly 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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return values, error handling, or when to use dryRun vs direct application. This leaves gaps for a non-trivial refactoring tool, though schema coverage mitigates some incompleteness.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action (move), resource (Java class(es)), target (different package), and side effect (update imports using OpenRewrite). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'java_rename_class' which rename the class name, not move packages.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'java_rename_class' or 'typescript_move_symbol'. No prerequisites or conditions for appropriate use are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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