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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is carried by structured data. The description usefully adds that moves have tree-dependent project_id requirements, but says nothing beyond the schema about reversibility or what happens to existing children.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the three supported operations before the tree-scope constraints. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 whose safety profile and parent constraints are covered by annotations and schema, the description supplies the critical tree-type/project_id conditional. Minor gaps like uniqueness or failure behavior remain but are not essential to invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantic value by clarifying the conditional relationship between tree type and project_id that the flat schema cannot express. It reinforces rather than merely repeats the parameter docs.

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 specific verbs and resource: rename, change description, move, on folders. Distinguishes the three folder-tree scopes (Test Cases, Test Runs, Modules) so the agent understands the tool's reach versus siblings like tm_create_folder or tm_list_folders.

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?

Explains the conditional context: test-cases/test-runs moves require project_id while module folders need none, and 'modules' is organization-level. Clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for editing non-folder entities.

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