Move media assets into a destination folder, or back to the media root, by specifying the target folder ID.
Move one or more media assets into a folder (or to the root with folderId: null). Use list_media_folders to find the destination folderId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Ids of the media assets to move | |
| folderId | No | Destination folder id, or null to move the assets back to the media root. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.73.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavior of moving to root with folderId: null, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is destructive (e.g., removes from original location), whether it requires permissions, or what happens to the assets' previous folder associations. The core behavior is clear but not deeply transparent.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The core action and the special case (folderId: null) are front-loaded, and the pointer to list_media_folders is a single useful addition. Every word earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter move operation with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, the destination semantics, and how to find the destination ID. The only minor gap is lack of behavioral details like whether the move is reversible or if it affects any derived data, but these are not critical for a basic move tool.
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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the semantic detail that folderId: null means 'move to root', which is valuable and not fully explicit in the schema's 'or null to move the assets back to the media root' (actually the schema does say this). The description's mention of 'one or more media assets' clarifies the ids parameter's plural nature, but overall the schema already covers the meaning.
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 ('Move'), a resource ('media assets'), and a destination ('into a folder or to the root with folderId: null'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like upload_media, list_media, and list_media_folders by focusing on moving existing assets.
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 explicitly tells the agent to use list_media_folders to find the destination folderId, which is a clear usage pointer. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a straightforward move operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.