files_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses authentication ('no auth or limits'), the local operation scope, and the path-resolution constraints. It does not state overwrite behavior or what happens to an existing file at the destination, leaving one behavioral gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layers constraints and the alternative mode in a compact four-sentence block. Dense but every sentence adds actionable information; only the parenthetical examples could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, and the description covers constraints, both calling modes, and auth/limit behavior sufficiently for correct invocation. Only destination-collision/error semantics are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100% so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that new_path 'must be absolute and resolve INSIDE the file's owning project or global knowledge directory' and clarifying the kind-mode semantics (subfolder path preserved).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Move/rename a KB file') and immediately scopes it with the constraint that project-repo files are refused. An agent can distinguish this from files_create/files_update/files_delete without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-not conditions (project-repo files refused, cross-project moves rejected) and an explicit alternative calling mode (pass kind='dictionary'|'note' with no new_path to move into the mirrored class tree). The when-to-use and when-not are both spelled out.

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