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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses a key behavioral trait: the OSS bytes remain unchanged, only the logical path changes, and the operation completes in milliseconds. This goes beyond simply saying 'move' and provides valuable insight into the operation's nature, though it omits details like permissions or failure modes.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the action and provides a helpful Unix analogy; the second adds a high-value behavioral note. No extraneous words are present, and the purpose 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?

For a simple move operation, the description and schema together cover the essential context: what it does, the key behavioral distinction (logical vs. physical move), and all parameter definitions. It lacks explicit error handling or return-value descriptions, but these are not required given no output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters: file_id, target_folder_path, and auto_create_folders. The description itself does not add parameter-specific details, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: moving a file to a specified folder, with an explicit analogy to Unix `mv`. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like `move_folder` and `rename_folder` by specifying it operates on files, and the logical-path detail further clarifies its scope.

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 Unix `mv` analogy implies the tool is for moving files between directories, and the mention of 'logical path' suggests a fast, metadata-only operation. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like `move_folder` or state when not to use it, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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