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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose two important failure behaviors: refusing cycles and refusing non-folder destinations. However, for a mutating operation, it does not mention permissions, side effects on existing references/links, or whether moves are recursive, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 compact and well-structured: it front-loads the core action, then lists key constraints, then notes the deprecated alias. Every sentence contributes useful information without repeating schema details.

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 3-parameter move tool with no annotations and a present output schema, the description is nearly complete. It defines the operation, root behavior, and validation rejections, and the output schema covers return values. The main remaining gap is side-effect/permission context, but the description still provides enough for an agent to call the tool correctly in most cases.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the destination can be root and by explaining the cycle/non-folder constraints, which enriches the semantics of file_id and parent_id. The agent parameter needs no additional explanation since its schema description is sufficient.

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 and resource: 'Move a Storage file or folder into another folder (or to root).' This clearly establishes what the tool does and distinguishes it from storage_get, storage_list, storage_upload_request, and similar siblings. Explicitly noting that drive_move is a deprecated alias further reinforces the tool's identity.

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 flags drive_move as a deprecated alias, implicitly directing agents to use storage_move instead. It also states refusal conditions for cycles and non-folder destinations, which serve as practical when-not-to-call guidance. It does not provide broader scenario comparisons, but the move-specific scope is clear enough for correct tool selection.

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