gdrive_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the dry_run preview behavior and notes that file_id is preferred when known, but it doesn't cover mutation consequences, error behavior, or what happens when multiple identifiers/folders are supplied.

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 compact and front-loaded; every sentence earns its place, and the Args list is not mere schema duplication because it adds semantic meaning not present in the schema.

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 5-parameter, no-annotation mutation tool, it covers discovery, use vs non-use, dry-run, and argument semantics. With an output schema present, not explaining return values is acceptable, though precedence among identifiers could make it fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does: all five args get one-line semantic explanations, including the useful guidance that file_id is preferred when known. It stops short of stating precedence rules if both name and ID are passed.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Move a file to a different folder in Google Drive.' It is immediately distinguishable from rename/copy siblings, and the 'Use this for / Not for' lines reinforce the precise scope.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use it (moving files between folders), when not to (renaming in place), and points to gdrive_rename as the alternative. It also prescribes a discovery step (gdrive_list_folder/gdrive_search) before calling.

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