move_item

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the operation (move) but does not disclose side effects such as whether the source is deleted, whether existing destination items are overwritten, or whether the operation is reversible. It also does not mention permission requirements beyond the account token constraint. This is a mutating operation, and the description offers minimal behavioral context, leaving significant room for unexpected behavior.

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 description is a single sentence, very concise, and opens with the core operation. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing. However, extreme brevity here results in under-specification, so while it is concise, the structure is fine but the content is insufficient. The score reflects the format, not the adequacy of content.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain what the move does in detail, how parameters relate, what the return value looks like, or any edge cases. An agent would likely mis-specify arguments or misuse the tool. The description is far from sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, meaning the schema itself provides no descriptions for any of the 8 parameters. The description mentions only 'account token only' but does not explain what path, dst_dir, is_dir, dst_repo_id, or other parameters mean or how they interact. With no parameter documentation in either the schema or description, an agent has no way to know how to correctly fill the arguments. The description fails to compensate for the total lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 clearly states the operation (move) and the resource (file or folder), and adds a specific constraint (account token only). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like rename_item and copy_item by the verb and scope. The resource and action are unambiguous, so an agent understands what the tool does without opening the 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'account token only' but does not explain when to prefer it over copy_item, rename_item, or other file operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, common use cases, or conditions that would make this tool appropriate versus others. An agent has to infer usage from the sibling context.

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