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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds that a folder can be shared through a single link, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about duplicate-name handling, permission requirements, or whether the share link is returned.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the optionality and duplicate-check guidance. Every sentence carries information, though the folder_id reference is slightly off-target for this tool's own parameter set.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sharing behavior, and duplicate avoidance. It leaves gaps on permissions, idempotency expectations, and what the created folder/link looks like, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 only 50% (name is undocumented; intro is documented), so the description should compensate but does not — it never explains what name or intro accept or their constraints. Worse, it references folder_id, which is not a parameter of this tool at all, adding potential confusion.

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 ("Create a folder") plus its organizing purpose, and immediately frames the scope against siblings by naming list_folders and the create_proposal folder_id path. An agent can distinguish this from set_folder or list_folders without further inspection.

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 an explicit precondition ("Check list_folders first to avoid duplicates") and clarifies that folders are optional by describing the alternative path (omit folder_id in create_proposal). It stops short of stating when not to create a folder at all, but the routing guidance is clear.

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