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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses non-obvious behavior: never overwrites and fails if the destination exists, creates missing parent folders, and the confirm-based preview/commit pattern. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered constraints and the confirm pattern in a compact sequence. Every sentence carries distinct, load-bearing information with 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with the annotation coverage and detailed behavioral notes, an agent has everything required to call this destructive tool correctly and safely.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: both source and destination must reside inside OneDrive, and destination semantics (existing folder = move into it, keep name) which the terse 'Destination path' schema entry does not convey. It also clarifies the confirm preview/commit behavior.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb pair (moves or renames) and a precise resource (a file or folder inside the OneDrive folder synced on this Mac), and notes the cloud sync. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like onedrive_write_file or onedrive_delete_file.

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?

It gives strong operational context: both paths must be inside OneDrive, an existing folder destination means the item is moved INTO it, and a preview is returned unless confirm=true. However, it never names or contrasts against sibling alternatives (e.g. onedrive_write_file, onedrive_delete_file), so the when-not guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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