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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the deletion is soft (Recently deleted), cascades to all descendants, has a 30-day retention window, and is reversible via restore_folder. Those are exactly the facts an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool and none are available in structured fields.

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?

One compact sentence pair that front-loads the cascade scope, then the retention and restore semantics. Every clause carries distinct information: what moves, what happens to it, how long, and how to undo.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers scope of impact, reversibility, retention period, and the restore sibling. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 tells the agent to source folder_id from list_folders or get_folder, so the description adds no parameter meaning. With a single fully documented parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Moves a folder') plus the critical scope detail 'and everything under it', which distinguishes it from item-level siblings like remove_from_folder. An agent can tell exactly what this tool affects without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to restore_folder as the undo path, which is the main alternative an agent would need. It also implies a distinction from deleting records themselves ('The records themselves stay in the database'), though it never states when a caller should prefer a different deletion approach.

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