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

Annotations already indicate it's a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the 'same workspace' scope but no additional behavioral details such as effects on permissions or reversibility. Given annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but minimal.

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?

A single, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and constraint.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation (2 required params, output schema present), the description covers the essential usage. It doesn't mention edge cases like moving to the same folder, but these are likely handled by the API and reflected in the output schema, so not necessary.

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% with both parameters described in the schema, though the descriptions are basic ('The file ID to move' and 'The destination folder ID') that merely restate the parameter names. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the action (move a file) and the scope (to a different folder within the same workspace). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bulk_move_files (plural) and move_files_to_workspace (cross-workspace) by specifying the 'same workspace' constraint.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for intra-workspace moves, which implies not for moving across workspaces. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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