operations_movefile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses long-running/async behavior and jobid polling, which adds value beyond the schema. But it does not explicitly state that the source is deleted after a successful move, nor does it mention permissions, overwrite behavior, or sync return values.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a necessary async warning. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 is minimally viable for a move operation but lacks explicit details on prerequisites (e.g., required source/destination), sync return values, and the fact that the source is removed. With six parameters and no output schema, more clarity would improve completeness.

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 100%, so all six parameters already have descriptions. The tool description does not add further meaning for any parameter; it only echoes the `_async` behavior. Thus the 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 action ('Move a single file') and the resource ('one object') with explicit source and destination contexts. This distinguishes it from siblings like operations_copyfile, operations_deletefile, and operations_mkdir.

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?

Provides an explicit conditional guideline for async execution ('If this operation is expected to take a long time... you MUST set `_async: true`'), including how to handle the resulting jobid. However, it does not mention alternatives or when to prefer move over copy/delete, so it lacks full selection guidance.

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