Move asset collection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain behavior beyond that: only manual collections are movable, nesting is capped at 5 levels, and cycles are rejected. It omits that a confirm flag is required, though that is documented in the schema.

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 the primary action first and the eligibility/limit constraints second. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and a fully documented 7-parameter schema, the description supplies the key domain constraints an agent needs. The absence of output schema is not an issue, though failure/partial-move semantics are left unstated.

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 parent_collection_id description already explains null-means-top-level plus the manual-collection/nesting/cycle rules. The description therefore restates schema content rather than adding new parameter meaning, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 (move) and resource (asset collection) plus the two destinations (under another collection or top level), which cleanly separates it from create/update/delete_asset_collection siblings. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the action is unambiguous.

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 states the applicable precondition clearly: only manual collections can be moved or act as folders, which functions as a when-not rule. It does not name update_asset_collection as the alternative for renaming/reparenting metadata, so the routing guidance is context-level rather than exhaustive.

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