Move Folder

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses atomicity at the gate, best-effort link rewrites with failed_links reporting, and the real possibility of a partially moved subtree with an unchanged index on OS errors. This is rich, honest behavioral disclosure that materially helps an agent anticipate side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core definition and then adds progressively deeper detail in a logical order. Every sentence carries necessary information about behavior, failure modes, or index handling; there is no filler.

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, non-idempotent folder operation, the description covers the critical operational concerns: atomicity, link rewriting success/failure, index update timing, and partial-move recovery. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, so nothing essential is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: new_dir may be an existing folder with merging, and a per-file name clash aborts the whole move. This extra context 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 states a specific verb and resource: moving an entire folder subtree to a new location in one call, and explicitly frames it as the 'folder-level analogue of rename,' distinguishing it from the sibling rename tool. The scope (all files under old_dir, links rewritten, structure preserved) is clear.

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 gives explicit usage context: it is the folder-level equivalent of rename, and it warns not to call reindex afterward because the index is updated immediately. It also instructs to call reindex after a partial OS failure, which is concrete when-to-use guidance.

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