fs_move

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

The description includes the warning 'Destructive → T2', which flags that the operation can destroy data—an important disclosure given that no annotations are provided. However, 'T2' is undefined and the description does not explain what is destroyed (source files? overwritten targets?) or whether the operation is reversible. The warning adds value but is incomplete.

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 definition is two short sentences with no filler; the core action and the destructiveness warning are front-loaded. This is an appropriate size for such a simple tool, though the cryptic 'T2' could be clearer.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin—it lacks usage guidance, parameter behavior, and a definition of 'T2'. While the output schema may cover return values, an agent still cannot determine safe invocation conditions, overwrite policy, or how this differs from fs_rename.

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?

The input schema documents paths and target_dir, and the description only restates them in prose ('file(s)', 'target directory') without adding semantics such as handling of existing files, glob patterns, or path normalization. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter details.

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 first sentence names the action (move), the resource (file(s)), and the destination (target directory), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like fs_delete or fs_read. It does not explicitly differentiate from fs_rename, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to choose fs_move over fs_rename, fs_overwrite, or fs_delete, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., source must exist, target directory must exist). This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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