sassy_move

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

The description discloses mutation, refusal of protected sources/destinations, the sensitive-read denylist with concrete examples, the read-equivalent exfiltration stance, and the no-overwrite behavior. This adds substantial context beyond the annotations, which only signal non-read-only and non-idempotent; there is no contradiction with destructiveHint=false because the tool preserves data and refuses overwrites.

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 dense but somewhat long; however, every sentence carries operational or safety information, and the mutating behavior is front-loaded. The safety list and sibling routing are justified, though 'relocate or rename' is repeated near the end.

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?

Despite having no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description covers argument semantics, refusal conditions, overwrite prevention, and sibling alternatives. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values; nothing an agent needs to call or avoid this tool is left unstated.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by identifying 'source' as a file or directory and 'destination' as the target path, and by explaining protected sources/destinations. It does not provide per-parameter path-format details, but the two string parameters are simple enough that the semantics are sufficiently clear.

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 opens with 'Mutating: moves or renames a file or directory to the destination path,' giving a specific verb, resource, and action. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sassy_copy and sassy_safe_delete, so an agent can tell siblings apart immediately.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it to relocate or rename; use sassy_copy to duplicate without removing the original, and sassy_safe_delete to remove instead.' It also gives concrete refusal conditions, such as protected paths and existing destinations, making invocation decisions unambiguous.

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