Rename or move one project file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that destination overwrite is refused, which is a behavioral constraint. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to the source file after the move. The added context is moderate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the primary action, and the second adds key constraints. Every word earns its place, and it is well 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description provides only minimal context. It explains the scope ('inside the same configured project') but omits details about path formats, return values, or error behavior. The annotations cover safety but not completeness. The description is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 only 20%, with only the 'project' parameter documented. The description mentions 'source hash' (likely referring to expectedSha256) and implies that destination overwrite is refused, which adds some meaning. However, it does not explain the format or meaning of source, destination, or createParents parameters, leaving significant gaps.

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 ('moves a file') and the resource ('inside the same configured project'). The title includes 'rename or move', which clarifies the purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like import_file_to_project or write_file, which might also move or create files.

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 mentions specific constraints ('source hash is required' and 'destination overwrite is refused') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state any prerequisites, context, or warnings about not using it in certain scenarios.

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