fs_move_file

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions overwrite control but does not explain what moving entails, such as whether the source is deleted, the default overwrite behavior, or what happens when the destination exists. This is a significant gap for a potentially 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?

The description is extremely concise, containing only two short phrases. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes no filler or redundant information.

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 file-moving operation with overwrite potential and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to state default overwrite behavior, destination-conflict handling, or whether the operation is limited to the same filesystem, leaving critical safety details undisclosed.

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 only vaguely references 'overwrite behavior' and does not clarify the meaning of source_file_path, dest_file_path, or how the overwrite boolean/null value affects the operation. This adds minimal value beyond the raw 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 clearly states the action ('Move file') and the specific resource ('file'), which distinguishes it from siblings like fs_move_directory and fs_copy_file. The added phrase 'control overwrite behavior' also signals a key functional aspect.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fs_move_directory or fs_copy_file. The tool name and 'Move file' imply the use case, but the description lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative context.

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