Move or copy file

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing queued/asynchronous behavior (returns RequestId, completes in background, verify by listing), destructive nature of move vs copy, confirm requirement, RBAC authorization context, and that denials indicate scope issues. This adds rich operational context that annotations only hint at, fully informing the agent of side effects and expectations.

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?

The description is information-dense and front-loaded with the core function, then systematically covers addressing, async behavior, destructiveness, and auth. Every sentence earns its place, though it is slightly long and could be split into clearer paragraphs. Still, it avoids fluff and is well-organized.

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 complex tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers critical operational aspects: queued completion, verification method, destructive consequences, confirm flag semantics, and RBAC error interpretation. It also clarifies parameter sources and defaults, making the tool fully usable without external context. No significant gaps exist.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds important semantic nuance beyond the schema: the storageId must come from search_files/browse_folder/recent_files and will NOT work from list_files, and confirm=true is required for actual execution while omitted/false yields a preview. These clarifications prevent misuse of parameters, elevating value above the schema alone.

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 explicitly states the tool moves (or copies) a file/folder to a new location, specifying the addressing method (exact object key + storage id). It clearly distinguishes move vs copy behavior and ties to sibling listing tools, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's primary function.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use (for move/copy operations) and critical prerequisites: requires confirm=true for destructive moves, correct storageId source, and bucketName. It implicitly differentiates from siblings by noting the storageId must come from indexed listing tools, not list_files, and explains queued background execution with verification instructions. Lacks explicit mention of alternative tools like duplicate_file or rename_file, so not a perfect 5.

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