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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate mutation without destruction, which aligns with the description. The description adds the scoping constraint 'within the same workspace' but does not disclose potential behavioral details such as partial failure handling, overwrite behavior, or permission requirements. Given sparse annotations, the description could offer more behavioral context, but it is not contradictory.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope. There is zero filler, and the most important information (multiple files, move, folder, same workspace) is front-loaded.

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 is a straightforward bulk move operation with a fully documented schema and an output schema (as indicated by context). The description covers the essential action and scope. Potential nuances like file count limits or partial success reporting are not mentioned, but the output schema likely covers return values, making the description adequately complete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (file_ids, target_folder_id, workspace_id, workspace_name) documented. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameters.

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 clearly states the action (move), the resource (multiple files), and the target (a different folder within the same workspace). It distinguishes itself from siblings like move_file (single file) and move_files_to_workspace (cross-workspace), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'within the same workspace' implicitly excludes cross-workspace moves, and 'multiple files' excludes single-file moves. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage, but explicit alternatives would be stronger.

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