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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate basic safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that delete removes only the folder while keeping agents, and that update should include only changed 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 description is a single front-loaded paragraph with no filler. Each action entry earns its place by specifying operation-specific inputs or behavior.

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 destructive write tool with a nested folder object and no output schema, the description covers all actions, required inputs, and the key delete consequence. It could be slightly more complete by noting what the write operations return or whether a created folder ID is surfaced.

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 60%, and the description compensates by mapping actions to required parameters and enumerating create/update fields. It adds patch semantics for update and clarifies folderId/agentId requirements, though it does not explain the mode parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb set and resource: create, edit, delete agent folders and move agents in/out. The action list makes the write-oriented purpose unambiguous and clearly distinct from a read-only folders tool.

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 provides action-specific guidance, including required inputs for create/update/delete/add_agent/remove_agent and notes that update is used for renaming. It does not explicitly name folders_read as the alternative for listing folders, but the per-action instructions are clear.

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