Baidu Move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a write operation, but omits critical traits for a move tool: what happens to the source (deletion), how overwrite behavior is controlled (ondup parameter), authentication requirements, and whether the operation is reversible. The src_paths semantic note is already present in the schema, so it adds little.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that conveys the core operation and a key semantic detail. No wasted words, and the most important information (move operation, write nature, src_paths special handling) comes first.

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?

Given 6 parameters (including an ondup enum with overwrite/skip/fail semantics) and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks usage context, behavioral details beyond 'write operation', and explanations of how parameters like ondup affect the move. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but other gaps remain significant.

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 83% (>80%), so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's explanation of src_paths but adds no new meaning for parameters like ondup, host, port, scheme, or profile. It does not compensate for the remaining 17% gap.

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?

States a specific verb (移动/move) and resource (网盘文件/cloud drive files), and distinguishes itself from siblings like baidu_copy and baidu_rename by naming the move operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast against those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as baidu_copy or baidu_rename, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 写操作 (write operation).

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