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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing error semantics (400 invalid path, 502 provider refused) and the Pro-plan requirement, which are real operational constraints. It remains silent on overwrite behavior when a target already exists and on what the call returns, which matters for a move operation that annotations mark as non-destructive.

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 states the action, followed by a compact backtick-labelled parameter glossary and a terse error list. Dense but every clause carries information; no preamble or 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?

For a 6-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, path semantics, provider keys, the Pro gate, and failure codes. Gaps remain around overwrite/collision behavior and the result shape, but nothing essential for constructing a valid call is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the entire burden and does so: it defines `src` as the rel_path from list_files, `dst_dir` ('' = root), `dst` as the full new path including name, `key` as the provider id for key-based clouds sourced from list_files, and `is_dir`. Only `connection_id` is left undocumented, and the dst vs dst_dir relationship (rename vs move) is conveyed clearly.

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 pair and resource: move or rename a file/folder inside the cloud. An agent can immediately distinguish this from delete_file or create_folder. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or boundary case (e.g. move vs remote_upload), so it stops short of 5.

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 through parameter semantics: `dst_dir` for moving, `dst` for renaming with the full new path. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over create_folder/remote_upload, nor of prerequisites beyond 'Requires Pro'.

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