move_folder

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, confirming this is a mutation tool but not destructive. The description adds context by specifying that movement can be into folders or workspaces, which clarifies the tool's behavior beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to nested content during the move.

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 concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core action, and the second specifies destination options. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 a mutation tool with annotations covering safety but no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or side effects. For a tool that modifies data, more context on outcomes would be beneficial, though annotations provide basic behavioral hints.

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 67%, with 'id' lacking a description but 'workspace_id' and 'folder_id' described. The description adds minimal semantic value by implying 'id' is the folder to move and that 'workspace_id' or 'folder_id' are destinations, but doesn't clarify parameter relationships or constraints beyond what the schema provides. With moderate coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'move' and the resource 'folder by its ID', specifying the action and target. It distinguishes the tool by describing folder movement, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'move_message_to_folder' (which moves messages) and 'update_folder_name' (which renames). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'delete_folder' or other folder operations beyond the basic action.

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 implies usage by stating 'Move a Folder into another Folder or into a Workspace', suggesting contexts where folder relocation is needed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_folder_name' for renaming or 'delete_folder' for removal, and doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing folder IDs or workspace permissions.

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