editor_move_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the operation name and gives no details about side effects, error handling, overwrite behavior, reference updates, or whether paths are project-relative. This is essentially no additional transparency beyond the tool name.

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 sentence with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimally informative, so it is not well-structured for an agent to act on. It earns its place but does not cover necessary context.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), a short description could suffice, but this one omits critical details like path semantics, overwrite behavior, and how it differs from similar file operations. The presence of many sibling tools (e.g., 'move_file', 'editor_rename_asset') makes this lack of context harmful for correct tool selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has two required parameters ('from' and 'to') with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain what these parameters represent, their expected format (e.g., absolute paths, asset UIDs, project-relative paths), or their relationship. With no schema descriptions, the tool's own description should compensate, but it does not.

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 action ('Move a file to a new location') and resource ('a file') with a specific context ('via editor'). It is more specific than a tautology and differentiates from non-editor move tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'move_file'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_file' or 'editor_rename_asset'. There is no mention of prerequisites, file path constraints, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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