Move host file

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context like supporting both files and directories and restricting operations to writable roots, but it does not disclose what happens to the original after a move or how overwrite failures behave.

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?

One sentence of 13 words that is front-loaded with the core action and scope. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name/title.

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?

With an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description does not need to detail return values. Still, it is incomplete for a destructive move operation because it does not clarify overwrite semantics, behavior when destination exists, or that the original is removed. 'Writable roots' is helpful but does not fully compensate.

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 compensate. It implies source and dest through 'move', but it does not explain the 'overwrite' parameter at all, nor describe path constraints, default behaviors, or error cases. This is a notable gap for a tool with no parameter descriptions.

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 exact verbs 'Move or rename', the resource 'a file or directory', and a scope constraint 'inside writable roots'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like file_copy (copy) and file_delete (remove), so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 implies the tool is used when moving or renaming files/directories, and 'inside writable roots' hints at a limitation. However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings such as file_copy or file_restore, nor state when not to use it.

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