An interesting question, with a proposed answer:

Declaring the move constructor

by Andrzej Krzemieński

From the article:

I am not satisfied with the solution I gave in the previous post. The proposed interface was this:

class Tool
{
private:
  ResourceA resA_;
  ResourceB resB_;
  // more resources
 
public:
  // Tools's interface
 
  Tool(Tool &&) = default;           // noexcept is deduced
  Tool& operator=(Tool&&) = default; // noexcept is deduced
 
  Tool(Tool const&) = delete;
  Tool& operator=(Tool const&) = delete;
};

static_assert(std::is_move_constructible<Tool>::value, "...");
static_assert(std::is_move_assignable<Tool>::value, "...");

In a way, it is self contradictory. The whole idea behind departing from the Rule of Zero is to separate the interface from the current implementation. Yet, as the comments indicate, the exception specification is deduced from the current implementation, and thus unstable...