webdav_move_remote_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it implies a mutation operation ('Move or rename'), it doesn't address critical aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure (e.g., if paths don't exist), or if it's idempotent. For a tool that modifies remote data, this leaves the agent with insufficient operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, permissions, and how it differs from siblings, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool safely and effectively in context.

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?

The description mentions 'file or directory' and implies paths are involved, but doesn't explain the parameters beyond what's inferable. With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (fromPath, toPath, overwrite), it adds minimal value over the schema. The baseline is 3 since the schema defines the parameters, but the description doesn't compensate for the lack of 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 clearly states the action ('Move or rename') and resource ('a file or directory on a remote WebDAV server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'webdav_copy_remote_item' or 'webdav_update_remote_file' beyond the inherent meaning of 'move/rename' versus 'copy' or 'update'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing the source and destination paths to exist, or clarify when to choose 'move' over 'copy' (e.g., for relocating versus duplicating files). With multiple sibling tools for file operations, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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