Move or rename

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine policy context beyond that: rev is required when leaving a zone with overwrite="rev", and directories cannot leave a strict zone. It stops short of explaining destination-overwrite or failure behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb+resource, then the zone/rev constraint, then the alternative-tool guidance. Every clause carries information, though the 'exactly like overwriting it in place' aside is slightly dense and could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail, and it covers the non-obvious zone/rev constraint and the trash interplay well. It omits destination-overwrite semantics and error behavior, minor gaps for an otherwise well-covered mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (source and destination undocumented), so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for rev ('requires its current rev, exactly like overwriting it in place'), but says nothing about source or destination, leaving the low-coverage gap only partly filled.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('Move or rename a file or directory') that is immediately distinguishable from siblings like trash_file and write_file. An agent knows exactly what class of operation this is without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Use trash_file, not this, to discard something') and adds the inverse rule (moving a file out of the trash restores it), giving both a when-not and a behavioral side effect. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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