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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), it discloses that the link is preserved, that visibility follows the new location, that widening access is refused with the affected people named, and that narrowing access reports who is shut out. That is substantive behavioral context an agent could not infer from the structured fields. It omits failure behavior for bad targets or the response shape.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with what moves and where, then the permission consequence, then the usage gate. Some phrasing ("naming them", "says who") is terse to the point of ambiguity but nothing is padding.

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 four-parameter, non-output-schema mutation tool with annotations already covering safety, the description covers target semantics, link stability, permission-refusal behavior, and the user-consent gate. Only the failure/return behavior on invalid targets is left unstated.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including the empty-"to" default and the workspace slug default. The description adds only the scope distinction that a doc moves anywhere in its workspace while a folder stays within its project, which is marginal value over the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Puts a doc (by "doc") anywhere in its workspace, or a folder (by "folder", "project/folder") elsewhere in its project" gives a specific verb plus both resources and ties each to its parameter. It is clearly distinct from siblings like rename or edit_doc, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

"Only when the user asks" is an explicit usage gate, and the description states the escalation case is refused and must be done by the user in the Dockito app, which tells the agent when not to proceed. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as rename for name changes.

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