o2_move

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a real behavioral trait beyond them: the destination is never overwritten, which implies a conflict/error path the agent must anticipate. It says nothing, however, about whether rename is achieved via a same-directory destination or about cross-backend moves.

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 dense sentence with no filler; the non-overwrite constraint is placed where it is most useful. It is efficient but borders on under-specification for a two-parameter mutation tool.

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 mutation tool with two undocumented required parameters, no output schema, and no annotation coverage of permissions or error behavior, this one-liner leaves too much unstated: what happens on destination conflict, whether the operation is atomic, and how renaming differs from moving.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the concepts of source and destination only obliquely ('mueve o renombra... sin sobrescribir el destino') and never clarifies which argument is which, their path format, or how 'destination' behaves for a pure rename.

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 states a specific verb+resource pair (moves or renames a file/folder) and adds a scope constraint (without overwriting the destination). However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling cloud_move or explain why an agent would pick o2_move over it.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cloud_move, o2_delete, or o2_upload. The only implied guidance is the failure condition embedded in 'sin sobrescribir el destino', which tells the agent the operation will not silently replace an existing target but not which tool to reach for.

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