move_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the overwrite behavior ('replace an existing file at the destination') and workspace scoping, but does not mention failure modes, permissions, or what happens when overwrite is False.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear one-line summary followed by a brief, well-structured Args block. Every sentence provides useful information without filler.

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 covers the core operation and all parameters, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not required. However, edge cases like destination parent directory creation or error behavior when overwrite is False are not specified, leaving some ambiguity for a mutating tool.

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 zero description coverage (0%), but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters, including the crucial 'relative to the workspace root' detail and overwrite semantics. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema titles.

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 moves and renames) a file to a new location within the workspace, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool rename_file, but the operation is 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?

The description provides clear context by limiting operation to the workspace and specifying that paths are relative to the workspace root. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like rename_file, and no exclusions are stated.

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