move_upload_file

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

Annotations already signal that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that the operation combines file creation and upload in one step and returns the file id. However, it does not disclose side effects such as duplicate file creation behavior, whether an existing file with the same name is replaced, or upload failure implications.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the return-value guidance is concise and directly actionable.

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 description gives the core purpose, the required input concept, and the downstream use of the returned file id, with the output schema available to cover return details and annotations covering mutation behavior. It is not fully complete because the optional parameters are not explained and sibling-selection guidance is implicit rather than explicit, but the main call path is well covered.

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 50%, with `name` and `metadata` left undefined. The description does not compensate: it only says 'local video,' which largely restates the schema's local_path description, and offers no guidance on the optional parameters or acceptable metadata structure.

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 combined action: 'Create a Move file and upload a local video to it in one step.' This clearly identifies the tool's resource and behavior, and distinguishes it from siblings like move_create_file by emphasizing the one-step upload behavior. It also adds the return value context, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly frames the intended workflow: use this tool when you need to create a file and upload a local video, then use the returned file id as Source.file_id when creating a take or volume. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as move_create_file or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is clear.

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