move_assets

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the tool waits until asset paths update. This signals that the operation is synchronous and that moving may affect asset paths. Nothing contradicts the readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=true annotations.

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 with no wasted words. The core operation is front-loaded, and the optional parameter behavior is given in a clean follow-up.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the essential context: what is moved, destination behavior, and the wait-for-path-update detail. It doesn't explain how the 'designated project' is determined or what the return value is, but the schema and annotations fill in enough for a straightforward 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?

The description partially compensates for the weak schema documentation by clarifying that omitting folderId moves assets to the root. However, it doesn't explicitly define folderId as the destination folder's ID, and the schema's 'Nullable asset reference' provides poor guidance. The ids parameter semantics rely mostly on the schema's item-level 'Asset ID' note.

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 names a specific action ('Move assets to a folder'), the resource ('assets in the designated project'), and the key optional behavior ('omit folderId to move them to the root'). This clearly differentiates it from the many asset-related siblings like modify_assets, delete_assets, or duplicate_assets.

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 intended use is implied by the operation itself, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose move_assets over related tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage hint is about omitting folderId, which is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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