Move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add one behavioral constraint, FS_READONLY=false, which signals that this is a mutating operation with an environment prerequisite. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior or the fact that the source is removed after a successful 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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds information: operation, resource, and a required configuration condition.

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 mutating filesystem tool with no annotations, the description leaves important call-time decisions unaddressed: overwrite semantics, destination-directory behavior, and relationship to copy. The output schema may cover return values, but the behavior gap remains significant.

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, but it does not explain src or dst beyond their names. The names are conventional, yet the description adds no semantics such as path types, relationships, or constraints.

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 ('Move/rename') and identifies the resource ('a file or directory'), so an agent can tell it is a relocation operation. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling copy tool, but the semantics are clear enough.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires FS_READONLY=false') but no guidance on when to choose move vs copy or how to treat an existing destination. No alternative tool is mentioned, so an agent must infer the usage context.

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