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

Annotations only declare the generic flags (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds two non-obvious behavioral facts the annotations do not: removing a page from a folder also strips a folder cover, and moving into a shared folder can grant access to its live version. That is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before mutating.

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 core action and null semantics are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the two caveats. Every clause carries information, though the final sentence is dense and could be split for readability.

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 annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the main risks (cover removal, access grant). It does not say whether the move is reversible or what the response contains, but those are minor given the annotations and simple 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 coverage is 50%: folder_id is documented in the schema itself ('null = not in any folder'), which the description largely repeats, while proposal_id is undocumented in both places. The description adds the access-grant implication of folder_id but nothing about proposal_id, so it partially compensates rather than fully.

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 ('Move a page into a folder') plus the null-folder case, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as set_folder, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the conditional side effects ('moving a folder's cover out also removes that cover'), which hint at when the call has consequences, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance.

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