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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the 100-file batch limit, the ownership requirement on both the folder and the moved media, and the mapping to POST /api/v1/folders/move-files. It stops short of describing failure behavior for a non-existent or unowned folder_id.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its limit, with the root-folder fallback immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is nearly complete. It could say more about how an invalid or unowned folder_id is handled, but the ownership and batch constraints are already spelled out.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description's statement about omitting folder_id essentially restates the schema text. Baseline 3 is appropriate; it adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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), resource (media files), destination target (folder owned or library root), and a hard cap (up to 100). No sibling tool performs a move operation, so the agent can immediately distinguish it from create_folder, update_media, or update_folder.

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 gives the conditional rule for the optional parameter: omit folder_id (or pass null) to move to the library root. It also signals the ownership precondition on the destination. It does not name an alternative tool, but no sibling competes for this action.

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