fs_move

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that the VM stays locked by this session, a crucial side effect requiring a follow-up action. This is valuable behavioral transparency, though it doesn't detail other side effects like overwrite behavior.

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 description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a critical usage warning. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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?

For a simple move/rename tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, the resource type, and the important lock behavior. It omits error conditions or return values, but these are not critical for a straightforward operation.

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 needed to explain source, destination, and overwrite. It only vaguely implies these are paths via the move/rename context, and overwrite is entirely unmentioned. This leaves the agent with limited semantic guidance for the parameters.

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 clearly states the tool moves or renames a guest file or directory, which is a specific action on a specific resource. This distinguishes it from sibling file operations like fs_delete or fs_mkdir.

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?

The description provides critical usage context: the VM remains locked after this operation and vm_unlock must be called. This tells the agent when to call it in a sequence, but it does not explicitly compare it to alternative file operations.

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