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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the one-folder-per-item model (filing elsewhere moves it), that invisible items are silently skipped (partial-failure semantics), and that a needs_confirmation envelope may come back, which explains the approvalId param. It omits any note on scale limits or what a success response contains, keeping it shy of a 5.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and each sentence carries information (verb, source of identifiers, move semantics, skip behavior, confirmation). The phrase 'Anything from any tool can go in' is slightly loose but still useful scoping.

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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation model, identifier sourcing, silent skips, and the confirmation round-trip. The only real gap is the shape of a successful response, which is not covered by an output schema.

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 `items`, `folderId`, `workspace`, and `approvalId` are already documented in the schema. The description restates the folderId:null behavior and the kind/id sourcing but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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 (moves) and resource (things into/out of folders), and clarifies the null-folderId variant means removing from every folder. An agent can distinguish this from workspace_folders_browse or workspace_folders_create 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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the required `kind` and `id` come from (search_workspace or workspace_folders_browse), which is the key precondition for calling it. It gives clear context but never states when not to use it or contrasts it with a sibling folder tool.

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