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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, signaling a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds that the action applies to one or more media files, which slightly enriches the batch aspect, but it does not disclose behavior like overwriting existing folder assignments, atomicity, or permission requirements.

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 description is a single, fully front-loaded sentence that communicates the operation, the resource set, and the destination with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and clear parameter descriptions, the description plus schema covers everything needed to make a correct call. The only meaningful gap is the lack of usage context versus sibling media-management tools, but that does not make the definition incomplete for invoking the tool correctly.

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 already include helpful provenance ('from list_media' and 'from list_media_folders'). The description restates the concept of moving files into a folder but adds no unique semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Move') with a clear resource ('media files') and destination ('media folder'), and the scope 'one or more' adds precision. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_widget and move_client_to_folder, which act on different resource types.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rename_media_file, archive_media_file, or create_media_folder. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues for when this operation is preferred over other media management tools.

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