Move File

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation semantics are covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the operation fails if the destination already exists (a non-obvious failure mode) and both paths must fall within allowed directories (a sandbox/auth boundary). It stops short of describing atomicity or behavior across filesystems.

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 core behavior and the failure condition are front-loaded and easy to scan. However, the cross-directory/rename idea is stated twice ('Can move files between directories and rename them' and 'Works across different directories and can be used for simple renaming'), which is mild redundancy in an otherwise tight description.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the key behavioral facts an agent needs (rename vs move, fail-on-existing-destination, allowed-directory constraint). Only path-format and atomicity details are missing, which are minor for this tool.

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?

There are 2 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It does state a constraint on both (source and destination must be within allowed directories), but it never explains path formats, whether relative paths are accepted, or whether source/destination may be files vs directories. Partial compensation, not full.

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 ('Move or rename files and directories') and clarifies scope: cross-directory moves and in-place renaming. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like write_file, edit_file, or create_directory without opening their schemas.

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?

Usage is implied rather than prescribed: 'can be used for simple renaming within the same directory' tells the agent one valid scenario, and the destination-must-not-exist rule implicitly tells it when the call will fail. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., use copy instead if the source should be retained).

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