move_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key failure conditions ('If the destination exists, the operation will fail' and 'Both source and destination must be within allowed directories'), which are valuable beyond the basic move/rename semantics. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the disclosed behaviors are material and not redundant with schema or 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?

Three sentences, each adding value: the first states purpose, the second adds the fail-fast behavior, and the third adds the allowed-directories constraint. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action, and appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple and has no output schema or annotations. The description covers the essential context: what the tool does, dual purpose (move/rename), failure conditions, and allowed-path constraints. It could mention what happens if source is missing or if moving directories with contents, but these are likely self-evident. Overall, it's adequately complete for this tool's complexity.

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 schema provides only parameter names (source, destination) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description helps by explaining that the operation 'move[s] files between directories and rename[s] them in a single operation,' implying that 'source' is the original path and 'destination' is the target path/name. It also clarifies constraints on both parameters. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could explicitly map the names to roles.

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's purpose: 'Move or rename files and directories.' It specifies the action (move/rename), the resource (files and directories), and distinguishes it from all sibling tools by being the only one that performs moving/renaming. The description also adds detail about moving between directories and renaming within the same directory.

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 context for when to use the tool: for moving or renaming files/directories, including moving across directories or renaming in place. It also gives important constraints: fails if destination exists, and operation limited to allowed directories. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, none of the sibling tools serve the same purpose, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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