storage_move

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add one important behavioral fact: the operation refuses to overwrite unless overwrite is true, which warns the agent about a non-destructive default. However, it omits whether the source is removed, whether folder moves are recursive, required permissions, and what happens to an existing destination tree when overwrite is enabled.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and entity before the conditions. Every clause (rename, folder convention, cross-bucket scope, overwrite protection) contributes distinct information.

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 five-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics of source, destination, bucket scoping, and overwrite protection. It could still be richer about source removal behavior, recursive folder handling, and the shape of the result, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 every parameter already has its own description, and the description largely restates the folder-trailing-slash convention and the overwrite flag rather than adding new meaning. The 'refuses to overwrite' phrasing gives overwrite a concrete consequence, which is a modest value add over the schema wording 'Replace an existing destination'.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Move (rename) a Storage object or a folder') and scopes it to the same or another bucket, which distinguishes it from the sibling storage_copy tool by move semantics alone. The parenthetical clarifies that folder paths are signaled by a trailing slash, so an agent knows exactly what entity it is acting on.

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?

It establishes clear context for use: moving within or across buckets, and that existing destinations are protected unless overwrite is true. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use storage_copy to duplicate instead of move, or storage_delete for removal) or stating when a move is inappropriate, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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