file.move

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the default conflict behavior and that silent overwrites are prevented. However, it lacks details on reversibility, permissions, effects on links (though a parameter exists), and return value. Partial disclosure.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain critical parameters like 'vault' and 'dry_run', and the overall behavior beyond conflict handling is vague.

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 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters, the description only adds meaning for 'on_conflict' by stating its default. Parameters like 'to', 'from', 'vault', 'dry_run', and 'update_links' are left unexplained, requiring inference from names.

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 'move or rename a file', providing a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by highlighting the default conflict behavior, which is unique among file operations. No ambiguity.

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 when to use (to move/rename files) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings. The behavior note about conflict handling guides parameter choice but not tool selection.

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