vault_move

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

Despite annotations already flagging destructiveHint=true, the description adds substantial non-redundant behavior: parent auto-creation, trailing-slash filename retention, the overwrite flag requirement, the fact that ifMatch/ifMatchGuard validate the source only, and the absence of retry or cross-filesystem fallback. These are exactly the operational caveats an agent needs before a destructive move.

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 definition is tightly packed with semicolon-delimited clauses and leads with the core action, so no sentence is filler. The telegraphic style is dense but each clause conveys distinct operational information.

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?

With annotations covering the destructive/non-idempotent safety profile and an output schema handling return values, the description fills the important behavioral gaps (parents, overwrite, precondition scope, no fallback). It is nearly complete, missing only explicit guidance on failure behavior when overwrite is not permitted.

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 carries the burden and does so well: it explains destination trailing-slash semantics, allowOverwrite's role, and that ifMatch vs ifMatchGuard are source-only precondition checks (with a note that ifMatchGuard mirrors copy's versionGuard). Only 'path' is left unelaborated, which is reasonable given its obviousness.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Move a file') and immediately scopes it ('no link/history updates'), which distinguishes it from copy-style or link-maintaining operations among the siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling outright, but the scope statement makes the tool's identity unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied through conditional rules ('Overwrite requires allowOverwrite') rather than explicit when-to-use versus alternatives. It never states when an agent should pick vault_move over vault_write or vault_delete, so the agent must infer selection from the sibling names.

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