移动或重命名

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true), and the description adds a crucial behavioral trait beyond that: overwrite requires user approval in interactive_feedback. This informs the agent about an interactive approval step that annotations alone would not convey. It does not go into details like irreversibility or failure modes, but with the annotation context, this is a strong, non-redundant disclosure.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the core operation, the second states the overwrite approval condition. Every word contributes value, there is no redundant phrasing, and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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 adequate for a basic move/rename tool: it names the operation, the workspace scope, and the key overwrite approval behavior. However, with no output schema and no mention of the default behavior when overwrite is false, path constraints, or error handling, there are clear gaps for an agent fully invoking the tool in edge cases. The overwrite default value in the schema helps, but the description does not tie it to success/failure semantics.

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 directly clarifies the overwrite parameter's approval requirement and implies the meaning of from and to through 'move or rename'. However, it does not fully document path format expectations or what happens when overwrite is false and the target exists, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('move or rename') and a clear resource type ('files/directories in the workspace'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_path, write_file, and edit_file. The title reiterates the same intent, but the description adds the workspace scope and file/directory target, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description tells what the tool does and adds one conditional: overwriting requires user approval via interactive_feedback. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like delete_path + write_file or create_directory, and it does not state prerequisites such as source existence or destination parent directory requirements.

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