move_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Operates locally with no auth or limits' and discloses cross-project rejection, which are key behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention return values or error handling.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action. It packs in constraints and operational details without fluff. The 'Parameters' section is slightly redundant but extends schema descriptions.

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?

For a simple move operation, the description covers key constraints and local operation. However, it lacks details about return values, overwrite behavior, and error states, which would be helpful since no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description adds the important constraint that new_path must resolve inside the owning project or global directory, which the schema doesn't specify. For file_id, it merely repeats 'valid file ID', adding little value.

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?

Description opens with 'Move/rename a file.', clearly stating the verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_file or delete_file. The mention of 'rename' clarifies the dual functionality.

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 constraints (absolute path, inside owning project, cross-project rejection) but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives. Usage is implied by the verb 'move' and the constraints.

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