move_file

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that a backup is created before the move and that directories are not supported, which adds actionable behavioral detail. It omits some details like whether the backup is retained or how overwrite is handled, but the schema covers overwrite, so this is adequate.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds essential information (purpose, backup, directory limitation) with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 description plus schema covers purpose, path types, overwrite default, backup behavior, and the directory limitation. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns or whether backups are retained, but for a straightforward move operation, the provided context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the directory restriction and backup behavior, but these are tool-level traits rather than parameter-specific semantics, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 the project, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it cannot move directories, setting it apart from general file operations like read_file or delete_file.

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 clear context that this tool is for moving/renaming files within the project and excludes directories. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for moving directories), so it lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives that would earn a 5.

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