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

Annotations already flag destructive/mutating behavior, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing partial-failure semantics: it moves every id it can, and reports permissionDeniedIds, refusedIds (self/descendant folder loops), and unresolvedIds while still moving the rest. This is exactly the failure-mode context an agent needs for a destructive batch operation.

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 core action and its key constraint are front-loaded, and every following sentence carries non-redundant information about partial success and per-id failure buckets. No filler.

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?

Output schema exists, yet the description still helpfully names the failure result fields; annotations cover the safety profile. For a two-parameter destructive batch tool, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the root-filing behavior of omitting parentFolderId. The description restates the same semantics ('a mix of document ids and folder ids', 'Omit parentFolderId to file everything at the root') without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resources ('Move documents or folders into another folder'), plus explicit scope detail (multiple ids, mixed document/folder ids). It distinguishes itself from the sibling edit_document by stating it does not change content, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Covers when to use (moving one or many items), how to target the root (omit parentFolderId), and when to use an alternative tool ('Does not change document content — use edit_document for that'). The only unstated alternative is archive, which is a minor omission.

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