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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that the call is free of charge and that image sets travel with the product rather than being orphaned. That child-resource side effect is exactly the kind of behavior an agent could not infer from 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action, then the removal variant, then two short trailing facts about cost and image sets. No filler and nothing buried.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, both parameter intents, the omission case, cost, and the effect on child image sets. Nothing an agent needs in order 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 coverage is only 50% and product_id has no schema description at all, but the description compensates by stating product_id comes from list_products and by restating the omission semantics for folder_id in plain language. It adds the meaning of the null case rather than just repeating the field type.

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 and resource ("puts a product ... in a folder") and covers both modes of the tool, including the removal case when folder_id is omitted. It also names the sibling sources of each id (list_products, list_folders), so the agent can distinguish it from edit_product or create_product.

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 clear operational context: where each id comes from and the exact condition under which folder_id is omitted (take out of every folder). It does not name an explicit alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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