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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by disclosing two guard rails: cycle prevention and rejection of non-folder destinations. It stays silent on permission requirements, behavior on name collisions in the destination folder, and whether the move is atomic or reversible — important traits for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the refusal constraints follow immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and parameters are fully covered by the schema, so the remaining burden is behavioral. The description covers two validation rules but omits permission/auth requirements and conflict handling when the destination already contains an item of the same name, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so file_id and parent_id are already documented, including the 'root'/empty convention for the destination. The description's "(or to root)" merely echoes what the schema already states and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond it.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Move a Storage file or folder") plus the destination scope ("into another folder (or to root)"), which is far more precise than the bare name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as storage_attach or storage_unlink, though the move semantics are self-evident from the wording.

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?

Usage is only implied by the operation itself; there is no explicit statement of when to choose storage_move over storage_attach, storage_unlink, or work_move, nor any prerequisites (ownership, permissions) that must hold before calling. The refusal conditions describe failure modes rather than when-to-use guidance.

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