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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by spelling out the blast radius — the form, its link and its responses are untouched — and by defining the null case as removal from the folder. It doesn't cover failure modes (nonexistent folder, cross-workspace move) or permission requirements.

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 primary action is front-loaded and the scope-limiting sentence follows immediately. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions and explicit annotations, the description carries a light burden and meets it: it states the effect, the null case and the non-effects. A minor gap remains around preconditions such as folder existence and workspace matching, which the workspace_id parameter hints at but never resolves.

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 all three parameters, including folder_id's nullable variant and workspace_id's conditional requirement, are already documented in the schema. The description restates the null-to-unfile semantics without adding format or constraint detail beyond it. 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 names a specific verb (file/move) and resource (form) plus destination (folder of the workspace), and explicitly covers the inverse operation via 'folder_id null'. The clause 'Only the dashboard's organisation changes' bounds the effect so an agent can tell this apart from the many content-mutating form siblings (update_form, set_form_slug, revert_form).

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: use it to file or unfiling a form. There is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (folder must already exist, must belong to the same workspace) or on when to prefer this over a general form update. Adequate, but the agent must infer the conditions.

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