Photos: Move

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

Annotations already flag this as a write with destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the 30 s task timeout, that longer moves keep running server-side, and that the reply carries a handle for photo_task. That async/completion detail is exactly what an agent needs and is not in annotations. It stops short of saying whether the move is reversible or how partial failures are reported.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the critical scope exclusion. The parenthetical workaround and the timeout clause are efficiently packed, though the timeout/handle sentence could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the response behavior (task handle on timeout). Combined with 100% schema coverage and mutation annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly, including the async continuation path via photo_task.

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 coverage is 100%, so ids, folders, space, dest_space, destination and on_conflict are all documented at the field level. The description reinforces the space semantics ('another folder of the same space') and the overwrite effect, but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource set ('Move Synology Photos items and/or whole folders') plus the exact scope boundaries: within one space, or personal→Shared Space only. That scope statement separates it cleanly from copy_photos and move_files without the agent needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance ('Photos can't move out of Shared Space') and names the workaround alternative ('copy, then delete'). The overwrite condition is also framed as a usage choice ('With on_conflict=overwrite it replaces files'), not just a parameter restatement.

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