Move a file or folder to a target parent folder by providing resource and destination IDs; optionally overwrite an existing item with the same name.
파일/폴더 이동
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parentId | Yes | 이동할 위치의 상위 폴더 ID | |
| resourceId | Yes | 이동할 파일/폴더 ID | |
| isOverwrite | No | 동일 이름 존재 시 덮어쓰기 여부 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether the move is reversible, what permissions are required, how name collisions are handled, or what happens to existing content at the destination.
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?
It is a single short phrase with no waste, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline — there is nothing front-loaded because there is nothing beyond a restated name.
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?
For a mutation tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate: an agent cannot learn from it what a move does to existing resources, whether it is destructive, or how isOverwrite interacts with the operation.
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 100%, with Korean descriptions for resourceId, parentId, and isOverwrite, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 when structured data does the heavy lifting.
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 phrase '파일/폴더 이동' (move file/folder) states a verb and a resource, and adds that folders are included, which is slightly more than the name files_move. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and offers no differentiation from siblings like files_copy, files_rename, or files_trash_restore.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar siblings (files_copy, files_rename, files_delete). No prerequisites, no mention of scope (same drive vs cross drive), no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.