ecp_files_move_multiple

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'move' which implies a destructive operation on the source files, but doesn't disclose what happens on partial failure, whether the destination must already exist, or whether overwrites are allowed. The schema is similarly bare, so the agent gets no behavioral guidance at all.

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?

One short sentence that communicates the core action. It doesn't waste words, but it also doesn't add any detail beyond the name and schema. As a descriptive sentence it is minimal but functional.

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 multi-file move operation, the description lacks critical context: destination semantics (directory vs exact path), behavior on collisions, whether overwriting occurs, permission/authorization requirements, and any limitations on the number of files. The sibling set includes ecp_files_copy_multiple and ecp_files_move (single), but nothing distinguishes this from ecp_files_move other than pluralization. The description doesn't mention return values or errors either.

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 two parameters (file_paths and destination) are completely undocumented in the description. Schema coverage of semantics is near zero: we only know types and that both are required. The description's phrase 'move files to a destination' strongly implies the parameters but adds no detail about acceptable path formats, whether source file paths must exist, overwrite behavior, or handling of folders. With minimal schema infoفق, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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, 'Move files', clearly states the verb (move) and resource (files), and the name 'ecp_files_move_multiple' implies batch semantics. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling `ecp_files_copy_multiple` or `ecp_files_move` (which doesn't exist in the sibling list but 'ecp_files_copy_multiple' does), so there's minor ambiguity about whether multiple means batch versus single.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ecp_files_copy_multiple or ecp_files_move (if it exists). The context is fuzzy – it says 'move multiple files' but doesn't clarify when an agent should choose this over single-file move or copy operations.

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