Organizar arquivos em lote

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: no silent operations, an item-by-item report of success/failure/conflict, shared safety/conflict validation with mover_item, explicit reassurance that no file is deleted, and required user-facing pre/post steps. This is substantial transparency for a mutation tool.

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 longer than a simple tool's but every sentence earns its place: core behavior first, then safety/reporting, then workflow instructions, then user-communication constraints. It is front-loaded and dense without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the item-by-item report containing success, failure, or conflict. It also covers authorization limits, batch size, conflict behavior consistency with mover_item, preview workflow, and post-execution reporting, making the tool fully actionable.

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 documents operacoes with min/max and structure, and the description adds that origem/destino must be inside authorized folders. However, conflictStrategy is left without explanation beyond the enum values and default; the description mentions conflict validation generically but does not clarify the 'error' versus 'rename' behavioral difference.

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 opens with a precise action: 'Move vários arquivos/pastas de uma vez', and immediately defines the batch scope and per-operation source/destination structure. It clearly distinguishes itself from the singular mover_item sibling by emphasizing multiplicity and up to 100 operations per call.

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 clear operational context: use this for batch moves, each operation goes through the same validations as mover_item, and preparar_acao is recommended as a non-mutating preview step before executing. It does not explicitly name exclusions or say 'use mover_item for a single move', but the batch framing makes the intended use sufficiently clear.

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