workspace_move

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: the destination is never clobbered (must not exist), the parent must pre-exist, and the operation is confined to project/ or storage/ (no cross-root moves). It stops short of describing failure/reversibility semantics, so a 4.

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: the action and its scope come first, the preconditions second. Nothing is redundant and every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is path-format semantics for the two parameters, which an agent must still infer.

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 carry the burden. It clarifies that destination cannot already exist and that its parent must exist, and implies source may be a file or a directory, which adds meaning over the bare 'source'/'destination' strings. It does not specify the path format expected relative to project/ vs storage/, leaving a real 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Move a file or directory') plus scope ('within project/ or within storage/'), which is enough to separate it from workspace_write_file, workspace_delete, and workspace_mkdir. It does not name a sibling or an alternative operation explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 states two invocation preconditions ('destination must not exist', 'its parent directory must exist') that tell the agent when the call will succeed, and the scope clause implies moves are confined to a single root. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., workspace_write_file+delete, or a rename), so it is implied rather than explicit usage guidance.

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