Move or rename a path

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds genuinely new behavior by disclosing the cross-filesystem copy + delete fallback. It does not say whether the copy+delete path is atomic, whether overwritten data is recoverable, or what happens on partial failure.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action first and the two constraint statements after it. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the overwrite gate, and the cross-filesystem fallback. Missing are failure/partial-failure behavior and return value, which matter for a destructive operation.

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 all three parameters, including overwrite's meaning and default. The description's 'existing destinations require overwrite=true' restates that rule in enforcement terms, but adds no syntax, path-format, or relative-vs-absolute detail beyond 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 and resource ('Move or rename a file or directory'), which is concrete and unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the neighbouring copy_path or delete_path tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Existing destinations require overwrite=true' gives a concrete conditional rule for a non-obvious parameter, which is real guidance. It never names an alternative tool (e.g. copy_path) or states when not to use this one, so exclusions are absent.

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