move_update_file

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

Annotations already convey that the operation is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as whether metadata is merged or replaced, whether null values clear fields, or whether the operation can affect existing file data in unexpected ways.

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 a single, terse sentence with no wasted words. The action and target are front-loaded, and the scope is stated directly as 'name and/or metadata'.

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?

The presence of an output schema and annotations partially compensates for the brief description. However, the lack of parameter-level detail and usage guidance leaves some gaps for an agent deciding how to construct a valid update call, though the required file_id is still structurally obvious from the 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'name' and 'metadata' and omits 'file_id' entirely. It does not explain the meaning of null defaults, the structure of the metadata object, or the relationship between the parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'file' and narrows the scope to name and/or metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_get_file, move_create_file, move_upload_file, and move_download_file.

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 context is implicitly clear: use this tool when an existing file's name or metadata needs to be modified. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives, nor any mention of preconditions like the file needing to already exist.

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