ugreen_move_file

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

Annotations already flag destructive, non-idempotent, open-world writes; the description adds conflict behavior (default auto-rename, replace overwrites), recommends dry_run, states no auto-retry after failure and to query current state, and notes token/NAS-account permissions. This is substantial context beyond the annotations and is consistent with them.

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 a single front-loaded paragraph with semicolon-separated constraints; every clause adds operational value and there is no filler. It remains dense but appropriate for a mutation tool with several invocation rules.

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 move/rename tool with four parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering only the safety profile, the description supplies the critical missing context: destination formatting, two-step cross-directory rename, conflict handling, dry-run verification, failure recovery, and permission scope. Only the skip option is left implicit, which is minor.

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 carry parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains destination semantics for cross-directory vs same-directory cases and covers dry_run and most on_conflict behavior (rename default, replace overwrite), but does not explain the skip enum value or add much to source_path.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb pair (move/rename) and resource (NAS file/directory), making it distinguishable from copy, delete, and create siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling such as ugreen_copy_file, 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?

It gives clear invocation context: cross-directory moves require an existing absolute directory path, same-directory renames require a bare filename, and cross-directory renames must be done in two steps rather than with a combined path. It lacks explicit when-to-use versus ugreen_copy_file or ugreen_delete_file alternatives, but the operational guidance is strong.

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