move_lab

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that moving a file could be destructive (e.g., overwriting an existing lab at the destination), requires write permissions, or any side effects like path resolution errors. The Args section is present but does not address behavioral traits beyond the basic 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 short and to the point, but is slightly padded by the Args format that could be condensed. It is front-loaded with a clear one-line summary then repeats data the schema already indicates (parameter names and required status).

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?

Given the tool has output schema (not shown here), the description still needs to cover completion behavior (e.g., returns success message, or raises errors for missing paths). It lacks explanation of what happens on success/failure, prerequisites, or side effects on the source file. The sibling tools indicate a rich ecosystem, yet no differentiation is provided.

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 explain parameters. The Args section adds minimal context ('Full path to the .unl lab file' and 'Destination folder path'), which provides a bit more meaning than the schema's bare titles, but does not specify allowed formats, whether both paths must exist, or how middle folders are handled.

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 a lab to a different folder' with a specific verb (move) and resource (lab). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like move_folder by targeting labs (.unl files) vs. folders.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., move_folder, copy operations), or what conditions must be met (e.g., lab not running, write permissions). The context for when not to use it is absent.

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