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

With annotations declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the effect ('leave listings and search; nothing is deleted'), the cascade rule ('archiving a folder also archives the contents that user can manage'), and partial-failure semantics via unresolvedIds and permissionDeniedIds with 'the rest are still archived.' This is exactly the extra behavioral context structured fields cannot express.

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?

Five short sentences, each earning its place, with the core action and scope front-loaded before the exclusions and error behavior. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still covers the ambiguous outcomes (unresolvedIds, permissionDeniedIds, partial success) and the cascade behavior. Everything an agent needs to call this safely on a batch of mixed ids is present.

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% for the single `ids` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning: ids may be a mix of document and folder ids, non-document/folder ids surface in unresolvedIds, and unauthorized ids surface in permissionDeniedIds without blocking the rest. That is useful semantics beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Put documents or folders away') with batch scope ('including several at once'), and explicitly names the siblings it is not: 'Not move, and not a content edit — use edit_document to change content.' An agent can distinguish this from move, rename, and edit_document without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance ('Not move, and not a content edit') plus the correct alternative for content changes ('use edit_document'). The schema and description also point to fetch/fetch_folder for obtaining ids, so routing between siblings is fully covered.

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