Manage Files

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

Annotations already mark destructive, but the description adds valuable context: confirmation requirement with 'confirm: true', the framework's per-tool gating, and path allow/deny checks. This goes beyond the annotation's binary signal and helps agents predict failures.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with operations, then necessary caveats. No redundant 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 and schema together cover the required parameters and destructive nature, but no output schema exists and edge cases like overwrite behavior are not mentioned. Still sufficient for basic invocation.

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 80% schema coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the 'mkdir -p semantics' clarification and the uniform confirmation requirement, which slightly enhances understanding of the confirm and operation parameters.

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 explicitly lists the four operations (copy, move, delete, mkdir) and identifies the resource as file/directory, distinguishing it from sibling tools like file_read/file_write. The addition of 'mkdir -p semantics' adds precision about directory creation behavior.

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 implies usage for filesystem mutations but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings like file_write or file_read. It lacks exclusions or alternative guidance, so an agent must infer boundaries from the operation list.

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