ad_move_object

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

The '[WRITE]' tag correctly flags that this mutates the directory, which is meaningful information. But with no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and fails to explain required permissions, whether the move is reversible, or the safety protocol implied by the dry_run and confirmation_token parameters.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the category and write tags. But the brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficiency, so it does not fully earn 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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, five parameters at 0% schema coverage, and a safety-parameter pattern the description does not begin to explain. The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing returns, but the preconditions and parameter protocol are still missing.

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 0%, so all five parameters are undocumented in structured data. The description only vaguely hints at identity ('qualquer objeto') and target_ou ('entre OUs'), leaving dry_run, correlation_id, and confirmation_token entirely unexplained. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb (mover = move), a resource scope (qualquer objeto = any object) and a scope constraint (entre OUs). This is clear enough to act on. However, it never contrasts with ad_move_computer, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative ad_move_computer for the common computer-move case. The intended usage is only implied by the phrase 'mover qualquer objeto entre OUs'.

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