Rename / move a OneDrive file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by scoping the exact operations (rename/move) and explicitly carving out deletion as out-of-scope. It stops short of disclosing error behavior, conflict handling, or return values, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar and the added scope is genuinely useful.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler: purpose is front-loaded, parameter mapping follows, and the sibling routing closes it out. Every sentence 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 simple 3-parameter mutation tool with a rich annotation set, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers purpose, parameter sourcing, and alternative routing. The remaining gap is the absence of return-value disclosure given there is no output schema, plus a minor ambiguity about what happens when only fileId is passed. These are minor for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%: 'new name', 'the OneDrive item id', and 'folder id to move the item into' already document all three parameters. The description's param references ('rename (name)', 'moveToFolderId', 'fileId (from list_onedrive_files)') mostly restate the schema, adding only the 'and/or' combinability nuance. This matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb+resource+scope: 'Update a OneDrive item: rename (name) and/or move it into a folder (moveToFolderId).' This precisely distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_onedrive_file and convert_onedrive_file, and the title reinforces the rename/move 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?

The description gives explicit usage context ('rename and/or move'), tells the agent where to source the required ID ('Pass fileId (from list_onedrive_files)'), and provides an explicit when-not with a named alternative ('To remove an item, use delete_onedrive_file'). This fully routes an agent without requiring it to inspect other tools.

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