move-drive-file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to re-establish the safety profile. It adds real context the annotations don't carry: that moving to 'trash' is a reversible staging step rather than permanent deletion, and that permanent deletion requires a separate call. It omits collision/overwrite behavior when the destination folder already contains an item of that name, which is the remaining gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource in the first line, then required params, then examples, then a caveat. The structure is scannable and every section maps to a decision the agent makes; the param bullet list is somewhat redundant with the schema but is not wasteful.

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 three-required-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the special parameter value, the trash workflow, and the follow-up tool. Missing is any statement of the return value (e.g., new path or IDs after the move) and behavior on name collision, which an agent would want before calling on a populated folder.

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% and the description restates the same three parameter meanings nearly verbatim, so it adds little semantic content. The concrete JSON examples and the emphasis on the 'trash' sentinel value give modest extra value but do not go beyond what the schema docstrings already say.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move a file or folder in a Dooray drive') and clarifies that the object can be either a file or folder. The trash-target special case and the pointer to delete-drive-file make it distinguishable from sibling mutation tools without opening any 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?

The 'Note' explicitly routes the agent to delete-drive-file for permanent removal and frames move-to-trash as a prerequisite step, which is genuinely useful routing. It does not, however, contrast with copy-drive-file or rename-drive-file, so the alternative-selection guidance is only partial.

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