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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior — that omitting folderId silently removes the transcript from folders rather than erroring — but it is silent on whether a move replaces all existing folder memberships and on the purpose of idempotencyKey for safe retries.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, where every clause carries information. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a destructive move with an undocumented idempotencyKey and an ambiguous multi-folder model, the description leaves meaningful questions unanswered before an agent can call it confidently.

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 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain folderId's omission semantics, which the schema cannot express, but idempotencyKey goes entirely unexplained and transcriptionId is only implied by 'transcript'.

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?

Names a specific verb (move) and resource (transcript → folder), and also states the inverse behavior when folderId is omitted. No sibling tool performs this operation, so it is distinguishable by name and description, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 implies the use case (assign or clear a transcript's folder) and reveals the omit-to-remove path, but offers no explicit guidance on prerequisites such as looking up a valid folderId via list_folders, or on when to prefer this over rename_transcript or other file-management siblings.

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