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

Annotations only say it is a non-destructive, idempotent write; the description goes far beyond, disclosing slug re-generation on collision, page address re-hosting with old-address forwarding, and the Marketing-folder side effect (pages published live, folder opened to the whole workspace as editors, addresses ending). It even explains recovery ('move it back to restore them'), which is exactly the behavioral depth an agent needs for a mutation.

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?

The scoping sentence is front-loaded, but the body is one very long, dense paragraph bundling slug, forwarding, and Marketing side effects, which is hard to parse and buries the actionable constraints. Much of it earns its place, but the structure costs readability.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers return ('the updated folder'), required workspace context on writes, destination semantics, and irreversible-looking side effects with their remedy. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 space, folder_id, parent_id, and workspace_id. The description adds only the provenance hint (both ids from list_folders) and restates the parent_id-omission rule already in the schema, so 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?

The opening verb+resource phrase 'Re-parent a folder' is precise and immediately distinguishes this from rename_folder, delete_folder, and move_site_to_folder. An agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

It states concrete preconditions and edge cases: pass folder_id and parent_id both from list_folders, omit parent_id to move to the drive root, and it cannot be moved into itself or a descendant. It never explicitly routes to a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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