Move File

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds specific behavioral details: the operation fails if the destination exists, and it works across directories. It also notes the allowed directories constraint. These details help the agent understand error conditions and scope, which annotations alone do not provide.

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 concise with five sentences, each adding distinct value: primary function, combined operation capability, failure condition, cross-directory scope, and directory constraint. No redundant or irrelevant information. Information is front-loaded 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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, straightforward purpose), the description covers all key aspects: action, success conditions, failure conditions, and constraints. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be described. The description is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only adds the constraint that both paths must be within allowed directories. It does not explain format (absolute/relative), validation rules, or the meaning of source vs destination beyond their names. The names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 tool moves or renames files and directories, with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_file and write_file by focusing on relocation/rename rather than content modification. The mention of 'single operation' and 'within allowed directories' further clarifies its scope.

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 clear context: it can move between directories and rename within the same directory. It states a critical condition ('If the destination exists, the operation will fail') and a constraint ('Both source and destination must be within allowed directories'). However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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