tealfabric_move_document

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, and it discloses little beyond implying mutation. It does not state what happens if new_path already exists (overwrite? error?), whether the source must exist, whether moves across directories are permitted, or whether the operation is reversible. For a filesystem-style move with no annotation coverage, these are material gaps.

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 short sentences with the action and the resource front-loaded, and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the behavioral gaps noted elsewhere rather than being purely a virtue.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and this is a mutating operation, so the description should cover failure and overwrite semantics. It covers the what but not the what-happens. Given only three parameters and full schema coverage, an agent could still call it, but not predict its edge-case behavior.

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 100%, so both required paths and the ignored tenant_id are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'package paths' adds only faint context and no syntax, format, or relative-vs-absolute path guidance. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific verb pair and resource: 'Move or rename a file/directory in Tealfabric documents storage.' That clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like write_document_text, upload_document, or delete_document by name alone. It stops short of naming the siblings it is not, which keeps it from a 5.

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 phrase 'Use to update package paths or reorganize' gives a concrete scenario, which is more than nothing. However, it offers no exclusions or alternatives — an agent cannot tell from the text whether to use this versus upload_document plus delete_document, or how it interacts with document text writes. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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