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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description goes beyond them by restricting destinations to existing folders inside the document's own home and by pinning down the exact reuse contract for request_key, which is precisely what makes the operation idempotent. It stops short of describing what happens on a stale expected_revision (conflict vs. overwrite), the one behavior an agent most needs for a destructive 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?

Four short sentences, action first, then destination rule, scope rule, idempotency rule — zero filler and well front-loaded. The compression costs a little clarity ('in its own home' is terse jargon that an unfamiliar agent must infer means the document's parent workspace).

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains — destination validity, workspace authorization, revision precondition, idempotency key discipline — is covered or delegated to the schema, making the definition sufficient to call the tool correctly on the first try.

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 17%, so the description must carry the load: it explains folder_id (null = root), workspace_id (authorized directory source) and request_key (single-request reuse), which is genuine added meaning. However season_id — an optional sixth parameter — is never mentioned, and expected_revision semantics are handled only inside the schema, leaving two of six parameters under-explained.

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 and resource ('Move this document') plus the destination constraint ('to an existing folder in its own home'), which tells an agent this is a relocation within a single document home rather than a copy or cross-home transfer. It does not name the near-identical siblings (native.move_document, native.move_documents) so differentiation is left to the agent.

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?

Offers real invocation rules — null folder_id targets the root, workspace_id must come from an authorized Film/Series/GenAds directory, request_key is only reused for the identical request. These are parameter-time rules rather than when-to-use guidance; there is no explicit exclusion or pointer to an alternative tool for cross-home or bulk moves.

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