move_create_file

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

The description reveals a key behavioral trait beyond the annotations: this tool does not upload content itself; it returns a presigned PUT URL for a later upload. It does not mention URL expiration or what happens to an unused reservation, but annotations already cover read-only, idempotency, and destructiveness.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior, and uses a single additional sentence for routing guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema fields.

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?

With output schema present and annotations provided, the description covers the important workflow and distinguishes the tool from its sibling. The main gap is the unexplained optional parameters, but they are not required for a valid call and the core behavior is sufficiently clear.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the name or metadata parameters. Only file_type is documented, in the schema. An agent needing to understand optional parameters like name or metadata receives no guidance from the description.

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 specific action: reserve a file slot and obtain a presigned PUT URL for uploading bytes. It clearly distinguishes this from the one-step alternative, move_upload_file, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does and how it differs.

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 explicitly tells the agent to prefer move_upload_file when the video is on the local machine, which implies move_create_file is for cases where the file is not local or a separate upload step is needed. This is direct, actionable routing guidance with a named alternative.

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