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

Annotations already indicate write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) plus idempotent. The description adds significant behavioral context: uniqueness among siblings, the side effect that changing the slug renames every /lp address that ended with the old slug and every one that starts with the new one, and that setting it back restores them. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 description is dense but not wasteful; every sentence adds value (path explanation, scope constraints, uniqueness, special case, side effects, return). It is front-loaded with the primary action and then details constraints. Slightly long, but all content is relevant.

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 write operation with constraints and side effects, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the path structure, scope restrictions (shared-drive only, Pro only), uniqueness, the special Marketing folder case, the full impact on /lp addresses, and the return value ('Returns the updated folder'). No output schema exists, but the return is stated. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% with detailed descriptions for all three parameters (folder_id, slug, workspace_id), including optional semantics for workspace_id. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides; it focuses on behavioral context instead. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description states a specific verb ('Rename a folder's link slug') and resource, and provides the full path context (<handle>.snaphost.ai/<folder-slug>/<site-slug>). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like rename_folder (which renames the folder display name) and set_site_slug (which sets a site's slug), even though it doesn't name 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?

The description gives explicit conditions: shared-drive folders only, not personal (My drive) folders, and Pro workspaces only. It also notes the special case of the Marketing folder in the website workspace, which cannot be changed. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, effectively routing the agent.

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