finder_move_file

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description does add genuine behavior beyond that: the operation is confined to 'authorized roots' and refuses to overwrite an existing destination. It omits the human-approval flow implied by the _approvalId parameter and the 'permissions: none' note, which is a meaningful gap for a 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?

Short and front-loaded with the core action, but the middle sentence about 'Rename' is confusing noise for a tool named move_file, and the trailing '[v1.0.0; permissions: none]' bracket is metadata that does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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 present and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description need not explain return values. Still, it leaves the approval/idempotency-key workflow and the move-vs-rename-vs-copy choice unexplained, which an agent needs for correct invocation in a mutating filesystem toolset.

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 100%, so the schema already documents source, destination, _idempotencyKey and _approvalId in detail; baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-level meaning, and its 'destination absolute path' phrasing is already stated in 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 (move) and resource (file) plus two meaningful constraints: 'inside authorized roots' and 'refuse overwrite'. However, the second sentence ('Rename accepts a destination absolute path') references a different sibling tool (finder_rename_file), which muddies the identity rather than sharpening the distinction from finder_copy_file/finder_rename_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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as finder_copy_file (preserve original) or finder_rename_file. The only contextual cue is the misplaced 'Rename accepts...' sentence, which reads as belonging to another tool rather than as guidance for this one.

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