Rename / move a OneDrive file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds marginal value by naming parameter sources and redirecting deletes, but says nothing about reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to the item's other properties on rename.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoping, with the alternative-tool pointer and parameter source packed in without waste. 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 simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete: it covers what changes, what's required, and the delete alternative. Minor gap is it doesn't clarify behavior when only one of name/moveToFolderId is supplied, though 'and/or' implies either.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description largely maps to them (rename=name, move=moveToFolderId). It adds the useful hint that fileId originates from list_onedrive_files, but for a fully-covered schema the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (update) and resource (OneDrive item) and immediately enumerates the two operations it can perform: rename via `name` and move via `moveToFolderId`. It explicitly names and routes away from the sibling `delete_onedrive_file`, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

It gives clear context ('rename and/or move') and an explicit exclusion routing deletion to `delete_onedrive_file`, plus provenance for the required id ('from list_onedrive_files'). It stops short of a full when/when-not matrix (e.g. when to prefer this over `save_to_onedrive` or `convert_onedrive_file`), but the routing is actionable.

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