move_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action and parameter formats, but omits critical behavioral details such as whether moving overwrites destinations, effects on contents, permissions required, or error handling. This leaves significant ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The 'Args' section is structured but adds some verbosity relative to the simplicity of the schema. Overall, it is efficient without wasted words.

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 tool has moderate complexity with 2 parameters and an output schema, but the description lacks details on return values (not covered by output schema context signals) and behavioral edge cases. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps that impact reliable agent invocation, especially without annotations.

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 0% (no descriptions in input schema), so the description must compensate. It provides clear examples for both 'path' and 'new_path', explaining the required format. However, it does not clarify edge cases like relative paths or allowed characters, keeping this from a perfect score.

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 directly states 'Move or rename an existing folder,' clearly conveying both the verb (move/rename) and the resource (folder). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'add_folder' and 'delete_folder' by specifying it modifies an existing folder.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool does, and the sibling list provides context for alternatives, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for moving labs) or prerequisites like authentication or folder existence. The 'Args' section helps but is more about parameter syntax than usage context.

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