Rename / move a OneDrive file

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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false implies a mutation; destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true align with rename/move being non-destructive and repeatable). No contradiction. However, it adds little beyond what the operation name and annotations already imply—it doesn't disclose outcome behavior for partial success, reversibility, or what happens if both rename and move are combined, though the 'and/or' phrasing implies these are possible.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then id sourcing, then the sibling alternative for deletion. Zero filler words; every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, present annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation, parameter sourcing, and the route to the removal sibling. An agent can call it correctly with what's provided. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly confirm that rename and move can be combined in one call.

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 schema already documents fileId, name, and moveToFolderId with descriptions. The description reinforces the rename/move mapping and clarifies the id source ('from list_onedrive_files'), which is mildly additive. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies since the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param docs.

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 states a specific operation ('Update a OneDrive item: rename (name) and/or move it into a folder (moveToFolderId)') with clear verbs and resources. It also names the sibling to use for the inverse operation (delete_onedrive_file), which helps distinguish it. It doesn't contrast with other related siblings like get_onedrive_file or convert_onedrive_file, but the core purpose is 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 an explicit exclusion ('To remove an item, use delete_onedrive_file') and a sourcing hint ('Pass fileId (from list_onedrive_files)'). This routes the agent away from the wrong sibling for deletion and tells it where to obtain the required id. It stops short of enumerating the full set of siblings or stating exact conditions for move vs rename, but the guidance present is useful.

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