move_file

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. The description only states the core action; it omits important details such as whether the source is deleted after move, overwrite behavior on destination, required permissions, error handling (e.g., non-existent src), or side effects (e.g., creating parent folders, which is noted in the schema but not in the description).

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices completeness; it would benefit from one or two additional sentences to cover essential behavioral notes. The conciseness is commendable but edges toward under-specification.

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?

The description is minimal and lacks context about the operation's effects (e.g., atomicity, overwriting), error conditions, and relationship to sibling tools. An output schema exists (not shown) which somewhat reduces the need to describe return values, but the agent still lacks enough context to confidently use the tool in complex workflows.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters (src, dst) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameters, such as path format constraints or typical usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema bears the burden adequately.

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 'Move or rename a file or folder' clearly states the action (move/rename) and resource (file/folder). It distinguishes from siblings like copy_file by implication of the verb, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as rename vs move behavior (e.g., overwrite policy).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., copy_file, delete_file, rename). The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or contextual exclusions. With a large sibling set, this omission reduces usability for an AI agent deciding which tool to invoke.

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