Move many items

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

The lone annotation is destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and delivers: a dry-run/plan mode, a conditional execute mode that aborts on problems, and the 200-item ceiling. This goes well beyond the annotation by disclosing gating and safe-preview 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the execution conditions. Every sentence carries a distinct fact (cap, name retention, plan mode, execution gate), with no filler.

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 mutation tool with only destructiveHint=false and no output schema, the description covers the operational workflow and what the non-confirmed call returns. Minor gaps remain, such as how name collisions are treated and what permissions are required.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema lacks for 'confirmed' by explaining that omitting it produces a dry-run plan rather than an error. That is behavioral semantics beyond the field's own text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move items into one existing folder'), with a concrete batch cap ('up to 200') and a retention rule ('keeping names'). The bulk scope implicitly but clearly distinguishes it from the single-item drive_move sibling.

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?

Spells out the two-phase workflow explicitly: omitting confirmed yields a plan and problems only, while confirmed=true executes only when no problems exist. It also states the prerequisite (confirmed=true only after explicit user approval), leaving nothing to inference.

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