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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description is not carrying the full burden. It nonetheless adds a genuinely non-obvious behavior: deleting a folder reparents its contents up one level and deletes nothing, which reconciles the destructiveHint=false claim. It does not mention whether 'move' overwrites or errors on name collisions, or that repeated moves are not idempotent.

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?

Front-loaded with the overall verb, then organized action-by-action in a single dense sentence. No filler and no repetition of the title. The telegraphic parenthetical style is efficient, though slightly compressed for a 7-parameter tool.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 7 parameters, the description covers action semantics well but says nothing about results: an agent calling 'createFolder' cannot tell whether it receives a folder identifier to use in a subsequent move. Collision behavior on move is also unstated, leaving a meaningful gap for multi-step workflows.

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 14%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it maps ids, toFolder, name, parent (marked optional) and folder to their respective actions. The token is documented in the schema itself. It leaves the format of ids, the meaning of an absent parent (root?), and path syntax for folder/toFolder to inference.

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 files and manages folders") and enumerates the three action modes, so the tool's scope is unambiguous. It also explicitly carves out file deletion and attributes it to the sibling delete_media, which differentiates it from that tool.

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?

Each action is paired with the parameters it needs ('move' with ids+toFolder, 'createFolder' with name+parent, 'deleteFolder' with folder), so selection is mechanical. It also names the clear exclusion: deleting files is delete_media, not this tool. It stops short of stating prerequisites such as the session token or whether target folders must already exist.

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