저장 위치 변경

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

Annotations declare destructive and non-idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: every change requires explicit approval in a client confirmation dialog, existing materials are moved when moveExisting is true, and headless clients fall back to a list + confirmToken round trip. This is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a destructive mutation.

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 action and its example are front-loaded, and each subsequent parenthetical carries a distinct constraint (allowed folders, rejections, WSL, approval, token fallback). It is dense but nothing is redundant; the stacked parentheticals make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the return behavior (a list and confirmToken when no confirmation dialog is available), the approval requirement, the migration side effect, and the path rejection rules. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: moveExisting (default true) migrates existing materials, and confirmToken is a one-time token from the first call that must only be supplied after the user consents to the returned list. That explains the two-step protocol the schema only hints at.

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 (change the storage location for lecture materials, assignment attachments, and recordings), scopes it to those three content types, and gives a concrete example mapping an utterance to a path. It is plainly distinguishable from the sibling get_storage_dir.

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 spells out when the call is accepted (general folders under the home directory, WSL C:\Users\... paths) and when it is refused (symlinks, hidden/system folders, folders nested inside or above the current location), plus the mandatory user-approval step. It does not explicitly name get_storage_dir as the read alternative, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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