move_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: moving/renaming, cross-drive support, and the specific rule about destination directories. It doesn't mention error cases like overwrite behavior or permission requirements, but covers the most important edge case.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation followed by a key detail. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 simple move/rename tool with two self-explanatory parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the most relevant edge case. It doesn't address error conditions or permissions, but the tool's complexity is low enough that this is sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dual purpose of destination (new name/path or existing directory), which elaborates the schema's wording and clarifies how the tool interprets the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Move or rename a file or directory') and adds a distinguishing detail ('Can move across drives'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like delete_path, list_directory, and file editing tools.

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 provides contextual guidance (cross-drive capability) and clarifies the directory destination behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. 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.