Move or Rename Project File

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

Beyond the generic openWorldHint annotation, the description discloses the key side effects: automatic creation of intermediate folders, deletion of the source file, HTTP 409 on collision, and staging in the working copy requiring a later commit. This is substantial transparency for a mutation tool and matches the annotation.

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?

Five short sentences front-load the action and then pack in endpoint, side effects, and error behavior. It is dense but not padded; only the endpoint mapping is arguably optional.

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?

Covers operation semantics, failure mode (409), staging workflow, and branch handling, which is complete for a focused move/rename tool. The absence of an output schema means response shape is not described, but the response_format parameter and simple operation mitigate that gap.

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?

All parameters have rich schema descriptions, so the description carries no extra burden. It reinforces branch pinning and intermediate folder creation, but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific operation ('Move or rename a file within a project') with concrete resource paths and endpoint. The 'source file is deleted after the move' detail differentiates it from sibling openl_copy_project_file, while rename/relocate language separates it from write/delete tools.

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?

Gives explicit intended use—'Use this to rename a file or relocate it to another folder'—and identifies the follow-up commit with openl_save_project. It does not explicitly contrast with copy/write/delete siblings, but the side-effect description ('source file is deleted') makes the choice clear enough.

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