Move or Copy Files

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false) by disclosing implicit side effects: missing parent directories are created, moves yield an undo id, and copies are irreversible. That reversibility information is exactly what an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero waste, with the core verb/resource and the most error-prone semantic (destination = full path) front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive batch mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers path semantics, parent creation, and undo/irreversibility. It leaves batch-size limits and overwrite defaults to the schema, which is acceptable but slightly incomplete for the destructive path.

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 meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Destination path' by clarifying it is the full new path, not a containing folder. Copy vs move semantics are reinforced, though overwrite behavior is left to the schema.

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 set (move, rename, copy) against a specific resource (files and directories) and anchors it with the mv / cp -r analogy. This clearly separates it from siblings like delete, create, and patch.

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?

Explains the key semantic that destinations are full new paths rather than folders, and routes the agent to the undo sibling for reverting a move, plus notes copies cannot be undone. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over e.g. create or replace_text, but the guidance is otherwise concrete.

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