move_lab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the prerequisite about the folder but does not describe any side effects (e.g., impact on running labs, permissions needed, reversibility, or error states). The agent has insufficient information to anticipate the tool's behavior beyond the basic move action.

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 states the primary action, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 2 required parameters, no annotations, but an output schema present (so return values are covered externally), the description is adequate but lacks clarity on the 'lab_path' format and any preconditions (e.g., lab must exist). It covers the folder prerequisite well but omits other contextual details like error handling or state changes.

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 compensate. It adds value for the 'folder' parameter by explaining the root case ('/'), but does not elaborate on 'lab_path' (e.g., whether it is a path, ID, or name). Partial compensation keeps it above baseline but still leaves ambiguity for one of the two required parameters.

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') and the destination ('into another workspace folder'), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rename_lab and clone_lab by being the only move operation, and includes a prerequisite (folder must exist) that clarifies 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when and how to use the tool: the destination folder must exist first, with a reference to create_folder as a prerequisite, and a special case for the root folder ('/'). This helps the agent decide the correct sequence of tool calls.

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