Move or Rename Project File

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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint:true, which is minimal. The description compensates by disclosing key behaviors: automatic folder creation, source deletion after move, collision handling (HTTP 409), staging nature (working copy), and branch pinning. No contradictions with annotations.

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: two sentences plus brief bullet-like points. Every sentence adds value—purpose, API mapping, behavioral details, staging info, branch guidance. No redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with core action.

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 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors: auto-creation, deletion, collision, staging, branch. It mentions when to commit. Could add return type info, but overall it's fairly complete for a file operation tool with good sibling context.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining that intermediate folders are created automatically for destinationPath, and that branch is used to pin the project's branch with details on when to omit. Examples given for sourcePath and destinationPath. This incremental value justifies a 4.

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 a file within a project, using specific verbs 'Move or Rename' and resource 'Project File'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like openl_copy_project_file, openl_delete_project_file, and openl_write_project_file by specifying the unique combination of move/rename, automatic folder creation, source deletion, and staging in working copy.

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 guidance: use this to rename or relocate a file. It explains that intermediate folders are created automatically, source is deleted, destination collision fails with 409, and the move is staged (commit with openl_save_project). It mentions branch usage to pin project's branch. No explicit when-not-to-use, but context is sufficient to distinguish from copy, write, delete siblings.

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