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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'This changes the item's location' and 'Returns confirmation of the move,' which clarifies side effects and return behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 with no filler. The core action, use cases, side effect, and return value are all conveyed efficiently, and the most important information appears first.

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 simple three-parameter mutation tool with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, use cases, behavioral change, and return behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it omits potential edge cases like moving a folder into itself or the exact structure of the confirmation.

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 100%, so the schema already explains item_id, user_intent, and to_folder_id. The description reinforces that the tool moves designs, folders, or images and that 'root' means top level, but it does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Relocate') with a clear resource ('existing Canva design, folder, or image') and destination ('destination Canva folder'). It is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which perform moving, so an agent can identify it unambiguously.

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 gives concrete use cases: 'filing, reorganizing, archiving, or returning an item to the top level.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like copy-design or create-folder or state when not to use this tool.

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