files.move

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the operation is local, requires no auth, and has no limits, which is unusual and helpful context. It also implies a destructive/renaming action but doesn't explicitly state whether the original is removed or if it's reversible; however, given the detail that does exist, it's a strong disclosure. It could improve by stating whether the move is reversible, but the existing information is substantial.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose and the key constraint front-loaded. The alternative usage is clearly separated, and every word contributes meaning. It's efficient and scannable for an agent.

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?

Given the complexity (3 params, one enum, one optional), the description covers the critical constraints (absolute path, containment, rejection of cross-project) and the alternative mode. It also mentions local operation and no auth/limits. With no output schema, an agent might want to know what the response contains (e.g., success/failure), but that's a minor gap. The essential behavioral guidance is present, so it's nearly complete.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, including the enum and the interaction between 'kind' and 'new_path'. Since the schema already explains 'kind' and the relationship, the description adds minimal extra value—it essentially repeats the constraint. The baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and the description doesn't exceed that by adding new meaning beyond what's in the schema.

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 it moves or renames a file, specifying the exact resource (file) and the action. It distinguishes this from other file operations by detailing the constraints and the alternative behavior with 'kind', which differentiates it from siblings like files.delete or files.update. The scope (must be inside owning project or global knowledge directory) is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit conditions for use: the destination must be absolute and inside the project or knowledge directory, and cross-project moves are rejected. It also clearly explains the alternative usage pattern (using 'kind' instead of 'new_path') and what that does, effectively telling an agent when to use this tool vs. when to use a different approach. It even hints at avoiding misuse by flagging cross-project moves.

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