s3_move_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly discloses the destructive nature ('Irreversible on the source'), the overwrite risk ('Overwrites the destination if it exists'), and the operational mechanism ('server-side copy then delete source'), which are the most critical traits for safe invocation. It does not cover permissions or error conditions, but the disclosed traits are substantive and go beyond 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?

The description is three sentences long, opens with the primary verb and resource, and each sentence adds distinct value: mechanism, source irreversibility, and destination overwrite. No filler or redundancy; it is highly scannable and front-loaded.

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 force-move operation with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision factors: what it does, its destructive effects, and the guard-mode restriction. The schema covers parameter specifics (including provider-specific region behaviors). The description is slightly less complete regarding return values or failure modes, but it is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool safely.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, including region-specific caveats. The tool description does not add new parameter-level detail, which is appropriate given the schema's completeness. The baseline 3 applies because the description neither detracts nor significantly enhances the schema's parameter semantics.

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 clearly specifies the action ('Move an S3 object'), the mechanism ('server-side copy then delete source'), and provides critical distinctiveness from sibling tool s3_copy_object by noting the deletion of the source. It also conveys scope and key consequences (irreversible, overwrites destination), fully clarifying what the tool does.

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 'Reserved for dangerous guard mode', providing an explicit usage restriction and caveat about destructiveness. It implies a contrast with a copy operation, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool. The mention of irreversibility and overwrite serves as guidance for when to exercise caution, meeting the bar for clear context without a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use breakdown.

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