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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by naming the actual side effects: inherited access may be lost, scheduled emails may be reassigned to the contract owner, and restoring the move requires both edit rights and access to the current folder. It also pre-empts a misread of the destructive flag by clarifying the contract itself is never deleted. Minor gap: no mention of response or failure behavior when the destination folder is inaccessible.

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 the core action and the null case front-loaded, then consequences. The semicolon-compressed phrasing ('return needs contract/destination edit and current-folder access') is dense and slightly telegraphic, costing some readability, but nothing is 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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential risk surface: access loss, scheduled-email reassignment, and the conditions required to reverse the move. What remains unstated — pagination or return payload, and behavior on invalid or inaccessible destination folders — is modest for a tool of this complexity.

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 100% and the schema already documents folderId as 'null: root', so the description's parenthetical restates existing structured information. The one piece of added meaning is the 'visible folder' qualifier, implying the target must be one the caller can see, which is genuinely new but brief.

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 states a specific verb and resource pair ('File in a visible folder or unfile (folderId:null), never delete'), which clearly delimits the operation as a folder-assignment move rather than a deletion or metadata edit. It does not name any sibling tool explicitly, so an agent must still infer the boundary against clm_update_contract or clm_move_folder from tool names alone.

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?

It gives concrete conditions for the unfiling case ('folderId:null') and warns about return requirements, but never states when to prefer this tool over clm_update_contract or how it differs from clm_move_folder. Usage is implied by the described mechanics rather than by explicit routing guidance.

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