drive_move_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool refuses on name conflicts, cannot delete/copy, and cannot move across Google accounts. These are meaningful behavioral constraints beyond the schema and help an agent predict outcomes, though it omits some details like permission requirements or return behavior.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the operation, the second notes the conflict behavior, and the third clarifies exclusions.

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?

The description covers the core operation, optional combinations, conflict refusal, and account-scope restriction. It does not describe the return value or error format, but no output schema exists and the essential behavior for calling the tool is present. Minor gaps around permissions and response shape keep it from being fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds that folderId and name are optional and can be combined, but it does not provide new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Move'), resource ('a Google Drive file'), and the operations supported: move to a different folder, rename, or both in one call. It clearly distinguishes itself from copy/delete tools by explicitly saying it cannot delete or copy, and the singular 'file' differentiates it from the batch-oriented sibling drive_move_files.

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 says what the tool does and what it cannot do (delete, copy, cross-account move), but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like drive_move_files or drive_copy_file. It lacks clear if-then routing or named alternatives, so an agent must infer when to choose this tool over the sibling list.

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