move_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'WRITE' and 'moves or renames' imply mutation, but the description does not explain what happens to the source, whether destinations can be overwritten, whether paths are relative or absolute, or what the outcome/response signals look like. For a mutating operation with zero annotation support, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The 'WRITE' prefix immediately signals operation type, the core action is front-loaded, and the sibling pointer to 'close' earns its place by preventing misuse.

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 with only two required string parameters and an output schema present, so a minimal description can be adequate. However, with no annotations and no parameter-level documentation, the description leaves important operational details like overwrite behavior and path resolution to inference. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 for the bare parameter names 'source' and 'dest.' It adds only that the operation moves or renames a 'note,' which weakly implies source is the original note and dest is the target path/name. It does not clarify expected path formats, whether 'dest' can be a new name only, or what happens if dest already exists.

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 action — 'moves or renames a note' — with a clear verb and resource. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tool 'close' by explicitly saying close is for archiving finished work, so an agent can distinguish them without extra context.

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 directly provides an alternative: 'Use `close` to archive finished work.' This gives a clear when-to-use-vs-alternative signal for the most likely confusion. It does not enumerate all sibling distinctions, but the core routing guidance is present and actionable.

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