move_nodes

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: all-or-nothing semantics, the two specific failure modes (NAME_CONFLICT, CYCLIC_MOVE) and their meanings, the required files:write scope, and the retry-safety purpose of idempotency_key. Nothing here contradicts the non-destructive hint, since a move relocates rather than deletes.

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 action and destination resolution, then atomicity, then the sibling escape hatch, then permissions. Every clause carries operational information; nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

Covers destination selection, atomicity, failure modes, permissions, retry safety, and even briefly notes the return ("Returns the moved nodes") despite an output schema being present. For a four-parameter mutation tool this is fully sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining the either/or relationship between target_folder_id and target_path and the root default when both are omitted. It does not add format detail for the idempotency key beyond what the schema already states.

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 one or more files or folders into a destination folder") and implicitly distinguishes itself from copy_nodes and the broader batch_nodes by describing a single atomic move operation. An agent can identify the correct tool without opening the 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?

Gives explicit destination selection rules ("target_folder_id or target_path; omit both for the root") and names the alternative plus the condition that selects it: "For per-item results or a dry-run preview, use batch_nodes." It also states when to pass idempotency_key, leaving no inference required.

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