move_path

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, non-idempotent, non-readOnly, closed-world. The description adds one genuinely valuable trait beyond them: 'Never overwrites', which clarifies the destructive hint. It does not say what happens when the destination exists (error? silent skip?), whether renaming across directories creates parents, or whether existing source is removed — gaps that matter for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key safety constraint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 described, but for a two-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage the definition leaves the parameter meanings and destination-collision behavior unclear. Adequate to call correctly in the happy path, thin elsewhere.

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% and both parameters are bare strings, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never explains that 'source' is the existing path or that 'destination' is the full new path (versus a target directory). No path format, relative-vs-absolute, or trailing-slash semantics are given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move or rename a file or directory') and constrains scope to 'inside the workspace', which distinguishes it from an OS-level move. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, copy_path, so it stops 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?

Usage is only implied by the verb; there is no statement of when to use this versus copy_path, delete_file/create_file, or create_directory. The 'inside the workspace' clause gives a useful boundary but no exclusions or prerequisites.

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