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

Annotations already indicate a non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds useful side-effect details: folders are auto-created, and the operation is metadata-only with no byte copying. This provides good transparency, though it doesn't mention failure modes or whether the source is removed.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. The description is well-structured, front-loading the core action and then adding relevant details.

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 simple move operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, side effects, and optional parameters. It lacks error-handling or return-value details but is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 covers to_path and new_name with descriptions but file_id has none. The tool description clarifies to_path behavior (auto-created folders) and new_name (optional rename), adding some meaning beyond the schema, but file_id remains underspecified. Coverage is 67% – not high enough for baseline 3, but not low enough to demand heavy compensation.

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') and resource ('a file in Octopus'), with clear optional behaviors (renaming, auto-creating folders) and a distinguishing characteristic (metadata-only, no bytes copied). Even with the sibling octopus_move_file, this description clearly defines the tool's purpose.

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?

Provides context on when to use (moving a file, optionally renaming, auto-creating folders) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like octopus_move_file or octopus_copy. The metadata-only note helps differentiate from copying, but no direct alternative guidance is given.

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