move_file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the allowed-directory restriction and path normalization/reliability quirks. It does not, however, explain whether an existing destination is overwritten or what happens on failure.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and clear, but the path guidance is repetitive—'Absolute paths are the most reliable' essentially appears twice—and the 'DC: ...' / 'use Desktop Commander to ...' boilerplate adds no task value.

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?

For a destructive two-parameter operation with no output schema, the description covers path handling and scope but omits key behaviors: overwrite semantics, error/failure conditions, and permission requirements. Annotations carry the destructive signal, but more operational detail would help.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does meaningfully: it explains that source and destination are paths, must reside in allowed directories, are auto-normalized, and that absolute paths are most reliable. That is solid path semantics beyond the bare 'string' types.

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 (move/rename) and resource (files and directories), and clarifies the dual behavior of moving between directories and renaming in a single operation. This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from siblings like write_file or create_directory.

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 gives a prerequisite ('both source and destination must be within allowed directories') but never states when to prefer this over alternatives, nor names any sibling tools. Usage context is only implied.

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