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

Well beyond the annotations (which only say non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), the description discloses the creator-only permission gate, visibility reconciliation across personal/shared folders, forwarding of the old address, automatic numbered-slug fallback on address collisions, and the public landing-page consequences. These are exactly the side effects an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 core action and its scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence carries non-redundant information. The final sentence is dense and slightly convoluted in its /lp/<folder>/<slug> aside, which costs some 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating what is returned (the updated site read model with new folder_id) and where the tool reports a slug reassignment or new /lp address. Permissions, collisions, and side effects are all covered for a mutation tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning about what folder targeting does — visibility reconciliation between drive types and the /lp/<slug> address implications of filing into the marketing folder. It does not mention the `space` or `workspace_id` parameters directly, so it only partially exceeds the schema.

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?

"File a site into a folder, keeping its share link" gives a specific verb, resource, and a preserved-invariant, making it trivially distinguishable from move_folder, rename_folder, and set_site_slug. An agent can identify the operation from the first clause alone.

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?

Explicit conditions are given: pass a folder_id from list_folders, or omit it to return the site to the drive root, and "Only the site's creator can move it" rules out cases an agent cannot perform. No sibling tool is named as the wrong alternative (e.g. move_folder for folders), so it stops just 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.