ftp_mv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutating move/rename operation and the same-access_hash constraint, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior, effects on existing files, permission requirements, or what happens when the destination already exists.

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 very concise and front-loads the core action. However, it is so terse that it omits useful context that would fit naturally in one or two additional sentences.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a mutating operation, the description is incomplete. It communicates the basic operation and the same-access_hash constraint, but leaves out parameter semantics, behavioral effects, and usage guidance needed for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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. It does not define the meaning of src, dst, access_hash, or optional agent_id. While the action 'move/rename' implies src is the source and dst is the destination, the description adds little beyond what the parameter names already suggest.

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 states the primary action ('Move/renomeia path') and the scope ('dentro do mesmo access_hash'), making it clear this is a move/rename operation on paths. It is distinguishable from siblings like ftp_cp (copy) and ftp_rm (remove), though it does not explicitly name them.

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 gives an implicit scope constraint ('dentro do mesmo access_hash') but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ftp_cp. It also does not describe prerequisites, error conditions, or whether cross-access_hash moves are supported or unsupported.

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