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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: slug uniqueness among siblings, the side effect that every contained page gets a new address while the old one forwards 'until another page takes it', and the reversibility note ('set the slug back to restore them'). Annotations cover safety/idempotency, and the description supplies the real consequential behavior.

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?

Purpose and constraints are front-loaded in the first three sentences, and most sentences earn their place. The trailing 'Marketing folder' example is quite long and niche for a general reader, slightly diluting focus.

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 rename-with-redirect-semantics tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, prerequisites, side effects, and reversibility, and notes the return ('Returns the updated folder'). 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 description coverage is 100%, so both required params and the optional workspace_id are already documented in the schema. The description's folder-path illustration lightly clarifies what 'slug' means but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Rename a folder's link slug') and immediately disambiguates the concept by defining the slug as the path segment in folder-path addresses. This cleanly separates it from rename_folder (name) and set_site_slug (site), so an agent can pick the right tool without reading schemas.

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/when-not constraints: 'Shared-drive folders only: personal (My drive) folders... never appear in links' and 'Pro workspaces only'. Strong exclusion guidance, though it never names the adjacent alternative tools (e.g. rename_folder, move_folder) as the selection cue.

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