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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the source location is cleared, what happens on partial failure without all_or_nothing, whether the move is atomic, or what errors surface.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler – verb, object, destination. Its brevity is only a problem because so much is left unsaid, but nothing in the text is wasted or padded.

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 mutation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. Critical calling details – the identifier format for files, folder ID semantics, and the all_or_nothing transactional behavior – are absent from both description and schema.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and delivers almost nothing. It never explains that folder is likely a folder ID (integer), what format the string 'files' takes for multiple files (comma-separated? one ID per call?), or what the all_or_nothing flag does – which is the single most consequential parameter for a batch move.

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?

States a specific verb (move) and resource (files) plus the target (a folder), so the agent knows it relocates files rather than folders. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like move_folder or move_queue_item, but the resource noun is specific enough to disambiguate on its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (permissions, folder existence), and no mention of alternatives such as move_folder for directories. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the name alone.

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