drive_move_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses per-row processing order, that each row yields a result, and that specific failure conditions (name collision, missing target, trashed source) only refuse that row while others proceed. It also states explicit non-capabilities. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences, no filler. The key point (batch form of drive_move_file) is front-loaded, and every clause contributes: row structure, limit, ordering, per-row behavior, and exclusions. Highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (batch with per-row outcomes) and no output schema, the description should specify the result format more concretely. It says 'one result row per item' but does not detail what that row contains or how success/failure is indicated. It references the single tool's checks, which helps, but the missing explicit result structure is a slight gap for an agent expecting a precise response shape.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the row structure ({fileId, folderId?, name?}) and the semantics of processing in order with one result per item, which goes beyond the schema's field descriptions. This slightly exceeds the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 states it is a batch form of drive_move_file, specifying the action (move/rename up to 100 files) and the resource. It differentiates itself from the sibling drive_move_file by being batch-oriented, making its purpose 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?

It references the single-tool drive_move_file and lists exclusions (cannot delete, copy, or move to another account), which helps rule out alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer batch over single (e.g., 'use when moving multiple files') or compare with other drive operations like copy or trash, leaving some inference to the agent.

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