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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses concrete error constraints: cycles are refused and non-folder destinations are refused. This goes beyond a simple 'move' statement, though it does not detail auth or side effects on descendants.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by precise constraints. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 well-covered: all parameters are documented, the output schema exists, and the description explains key failure modes. Minor omissions like permission requirements or descendant behavior when moving a folder keep it from being fully complete.

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%, so the schema already fully documents file_id and parent_id. The description adds the conceptual 'or to root' behavior but does not provide substantial parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like work_move by explicitly naming Storage objects.

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 clearly communicates when to use the tool: relocating a storage file or folder. It also routes away from the deprecated alias drive_move. It does not explicitly contrast with work_move or other storage tools, but the 'Storage' scope makes the intended use clear.

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