move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful behavioral trait: 'Automatically detects file/directory type and handles appropriately.' However, it omits other important behaviors such as overwrite semantics, error handling, or permission requirements, which are common concerns for move operations.

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 repetitive, including the same content in English and Chinese, a redundant keywords list, and a separate schema description that mostly duplicates the top-level description. While the opening sentence is clear, the overall text is disproportionately long and not concise.

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 tool is simple (2 parameters) and the schema fully documents the parameters. The description covers purpose, usage, and auto-detection, but lacks details about overwrite behavior and return values. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe returns, so it is adequate but not thorough.

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% with detailed descriptions and examples for both source and destination. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely reinforcing that the tool auto-detects file/directory types, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'MOVE or RENAME files and directories', and explicitly positions it as the 'MAIN move/rename tool' with a recommendation label, distinguishing it from sibling tools like move_file and move_directory.

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 usage context: 'use for ALL move and rename operations' and lists five concrete use cases. It also includes keywords to aid retrieval, effectively telling the agent to prefer this tool over alternatives. The 'use for all' instruction is strong enough to guide selection.

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