ragflow_move_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a rename applies to a single item, which is useful scoping beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about failure modes (name collisions, cross-dataset moves, missing destination) or whether an overwrite can occur.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the three modes are packed into one clause without repetition of schema 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?

With annotations covering safety, an output schema handling return values, and full parameter documentation, the description supplies the essential operation modes and is close to complete. The remaining gap is that it doesn't mention permission or destination validity requirements for a mutation tool.

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 100%, and the schema already explains file_ids, new_name (single item, extension fixed), and dest_folder_id (omit to rename in place). The description only restates that mapping at a high level, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (move/rename) and resource (files or folders) and enumerates the three operating modes: move, rename, or both. It is unambiguous on its own, though it does not name a sibling for contrast (none of the listed siblings duplicates this capability, so the omission is minor).

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?

"Move files or folders to another folder, rename one item, or both" implies when each mode applies, but it does not state prerequisites (e.g., ownership/permission, same-dataset constraints) or when to prefer it over the file-management siblings like ragflow_update_document or ragflow_create_folder. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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