file_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the duplicate-collision rule (inbox copy deleted instead), the safety invariants (never overwrites, never deletes outside the inbox), and the special-case routing for e-Fatura CSV. It omits permissions requirements and what the tool reports back after filing or deleting.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action, then conditions and safety invariants in short declarative sentences. Every sentence adds a distinct rule; nothing is repeated from the schema or wasted.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavior, edge cases, and safety well. The remaining gap is return-value information — what the caller sees after a file, a skip, or a dry run — which nothing else supplies.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it names the role of each parameter: the inbox document (`path`), the name override (`name` defaulting to the proposed name), and the preview mode (`dry_run`, via "Dry run first"). It stops short of clarifying whether `path` is absolute or inbox-relative and what a dry run actually returns.

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 and resource: moving a document out of the inbox into its tax-year folder. It names the destination, the naming rule, and the special e-Fatura CSV routing, which cleanly separates it from siblings like scan_inbox, plan_inbox, and mark_filed.

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?

"Dry run first" gives an explicit ordering instruction, and "under the proposed name (or `name`)" implies this follows a prior planning step. It does not, however, name the sibling that produces the proposal (plan_inbox) or state when not to use this tool, so alternatives remain inferred rather than stated.

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