drive_move

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation (false), the description discloses that authentication is required, that the operation fails if the destination path is already occupied or its parent folder does not exist, and explains the exact rename/move mechanics. While it does not mention return values, there is no output schema and the provided context is sufficient for safe usage.

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 well-structured paragraph: it starts with the core action, then explores rename and move patterns with a concrete example, lists failure conditions, and closes with explicit 'do not use' alternatives. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has only two parameters, both thoroughly documented in the schema, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary operational context: authentication prerequisite, usage modes (rename/move), failure conditions, and exclusions. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly in any relevant scenario.

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?

Even though both schema parameters have descriptions (100% coverage), the tool description adds practical semantics that shape parameter usage: renaming requires keeping the same parent while changing the filename, moving requires a different parent. This clarifies how to construct sourcePath and destinationPath for each intended operation, exceeding what the schema alone provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Move or rename a file or folder on Proton Drive'), immediately clarifying the tool's core function. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing drive_rename, drive_copy, and drive_download, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: details the rename scenario (same parent, change filename) versus the move scenario (different parent), and directs users to drive_rename for pure renames, drive_copy for copies, and drive_download for downloads. It also states a prerequisite (parent folder must exist) and failure conditions, giving clear operational boundaries.

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