move_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation modifies the computer and that existing destinations require overwrite=true, which is a key safeguard. However, it does not explain consequences such as the source path being removed, permission requirements, or error behavior when overwrite is false.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary operation. Every word adds value, including the warning about overwrite.

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 covers the core operation and a critical condition (overwrite), and an output schema exists to describe returns. Yet, it omits details like recursive moves, cross-filesystem behavior, and failure semantics, which are important for a mutating operation with no annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the overwrite parameter's behavior ('Existing destinations require overwrite=true') and clarifies that source can be a file or directory. Source and destination parameters are not further elaborated beyond their names, leaving some ambiguity about path formats.

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 the tool moves or renames a file or directory, which is a specific verb+resource operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like copy_path and delete_path. The phrase 'This modifies the computer' reinforces its mutating role.

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 moving or renaming paths, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like copy_path or delete_path. It does provide a condition (overwrite=true when destination exists), which gives some usage context, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance.

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