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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only but non-destructive mutation in a closed world; the description adds meaningful context beyond that by clarifying that assets are re-linked rather than copied or re-uploaded and that consuming projects keep their references. The main omission is reversibility and what happens on naming conflicts in the destination folder.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its two modes, then a consequence clause. Slightly compressed phrasing ('files of the library', 'projects that use them keep them') costs a little clarity but nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essential unknowns: destination semantics, non-copying behavior, and no downstream breakage. It stops short of describing the return value or failure modes, which is acceptable here but leaves a small gap.

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 50%: the folder parameter is documented in the schema (including auto-creation and null-as-workspace), and the description only reinforces the null case by framing it as 'share them with the whole workspace'. The assetIds array (1-200 items) carries no explanation in either place, so the description does not compensate for the uncovered half.

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?

States a specific verb ('Move') plus the resource scope ('files of the library') and explains both destination modes, including the non-obvious null case. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly named siblings such as move_media or move_clip, so an agent must infer that this one is library-scoped.

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 tells the agent which mode to pick by passing a folder name versus null, which is real usage guidance for the two paths. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over the move_* siblings or on prerequisites (ownership, permissions), so usage is implied rather than stated.

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