move_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only mentions the action and the root restriction. It does not disclose what happens if the destination exists, whether parent directories are created, whether cross-root moves are rejected, or the effect on directory contents.

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 one concise sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core action. It is efficient, though it could add more behavioral detail without becoming bloated.

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-value details are not required. However, for a mutation-like tool with no annotations, critical edge cases around destination conflicts, path constraints, and failure behavior are left unspecified, making the description incomplete for confident invocation.

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 should compensate for the source and destination parameters. It only implies they are paths within the configured roots and provides no format, path-resolution, or constraint details beyond the parameter names.

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 ('Move') and a clear resource ('a file or directory'), and explicitly scopes it to 'configured local roots'. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_path, read_text_file, and write_text_file.

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 'within the configured local roots' phrase gives an explicit constraint that helps an agent decide when this tool applies. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the action and scope are clear enough for selection against the listed siblings.

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