Move/Rename

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

Annotations already show destructiveHint=true (destructive operation) and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it modifies file system by moving/renaming, which aligns. No contradiction. For a file move tool, this is sufficient given annotations.

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 with two paragraphs: first line stating purpose, then structured args and examples. The examples are front-loaded and helpful. Slightly verbose due to docstring formatting but overall 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 simple operation (move/rename) with annotations covering destructive nature and no output schema needed, the description sufficiently covers key aspects. Could be more complete with notes on overwrite behavior or cross-drive moves.

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% with minLength=1 and descriptions 'Source path' and 'Destination path'. The description adds slightly more by showing examples with concrete paths, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond schema. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool moves or renames a file/directory with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like fc_copy or fc_archive by explicitly using 'move/rename' and showing different name/directory examples.

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 provides basic usage via examples but lacks guidance on when to use this over alternatives like fc_copy (which copies) or fc_batch_rename (for batch). No explicit when-not or prerequisites are mentioned.

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