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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the side effect that clearing folder_id returns entities to 'Sound effects', which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. It says nothing about failure modes, partial failures on batch moves, or permission requirements.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the primary operation first and the edge case in parentheses. Nothing is wasted and the empty-folder_id nuance is placed where an agent will see it.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, both input modes, and the resulting destination well enough to call it correctly. The main omissions are error semantics and the batch limit already present in the schema, which are minor at 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the semantics of folder_id, including the special empty-string case, which is genuinely valuable. However, it adds nothing about entity_ids (the required parameter) — no mention of the 500-item cap, the minimum of one, or that IDs must refer to existing entities.

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 ('Moves') and resource ('entities') plus the destination ('into a folder'), which is enough for an agent to pick it out against siblings like create_entity or list_folders. It stops short of distinguishing itself from other organizational tools by name, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 does convey the two modes an agent can use: supply folder_id to move into a folder, or pass an empty folder_id to remove the entity from its folder. It offers no conditions about when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., folder must already exist), and no guidance on batch behavior.

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