move-file-to-location

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds nothing beyond them: no mention of whether the source copy is removed, whether an existing file of the same name at the destination is overwritten, or what permissions are required. For a destructive mutation, that is a meaningful gap in behavioral context.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but it is essentially a copy of the title, so its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. Every word earns its place only because there are so few words.

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 destructive move operation with no output schema and no documented parameters, the description should at minimum explain file identification, destination semantics, and overwrite behavior. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to call the tool confidently from the definition alone.

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 the single 'folder' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never states that 'folder' is an integer ID of the destination folder, and it never explains how the file being moved is identified at all, which is the more serious omission since no file identifier appears in the schema.

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 verb and resource are clear ('Move a file'), but the description is a verbatim restatement of the tool title and leaves 'location' undefined, which is ambiguous given siblings like add-block-to-page-area and get-child-pages that suggest multiple location concepts. It never says whether the destination is a folder, site, or page area, so the agent cannot fully pin the resource semantics from the description alone.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The agent is not told how this differs from update-file-by-id or whether moving is preferred over delete-file-by-id plus add-file, even though both siblings are visible in the tool list.

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