Move a file

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the default action removes the file from all current parents, keep_exsisting_parents only adds, shared-drive parent constraints, ownership-rule changes, possible rejection, and even an extra-read cost. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone communicate. No contradiction with annotations; 'destructive' aligns with removing parent relationships and ownership changes.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the main action and return value are in the first sentence, caveats follow logically, and every sentence earns its place (default behavior, shared-drive exception, ownership/rejection warning, cost note). There is no fluff or repetition of schema descriptions.

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?

Given the operation's complexity, the description explains the return value, the default vs. optional behavior, edge cases (shared drives, ownership, rejection), and performance cost. The input schema already documents parameters, and no output schema exists, so the description's return-value note is necessary and sufficient. An agent has everything needed to decide when and how to call it correctly.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the real-world consequence of keep_existing_parents=true and the shared-drive limitation ('files in shared drives always have exactly one parent, so keeping old parents fails there'), which is not fully captured in the schema. It also contextualizes file_id and new_parent_id implicitly via the move semantic. This exceeds the baseline without being redundant.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Moves a file or folder into another folder (or shared drive)' and specifies the return value (id, name, new parents). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like copy_file, update_file_metadata, and trash_file. The purpose is unambiguous and specific, not a tautology.

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 explains the default move behavior vs. keep_existing_parents=true, and warns that the latter fails in shared drives because they always have exactly one parent. It also mentions that moving between My Drive and a shared drive may be rejected. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., copy_file when the original should be retained), so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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