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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the change is persistent and affects all subsequent OneDrive operations across read, write, list, search, delete, and move. It also states that changes take effect immediately and that passing an empty folder removes the restriction, which is valuable reversal information. Annotations only cover read/write/destructive hints, so this adds substantial value.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with the primary purpose, then explains the scope of the effect, how to remove the restriction, and the immediacy of the change. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is a configuration/safety setting with significant cross-tool implications. The description fully captures the essential behavior: what it restricts, which operations are affected, how to remove the restriction, and that changes are immediate. Since an output schema exists, return values are covered elsewhere. The description is complete for this tool's 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 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds no new information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., folder example, empty string behavior, confirm must be true, root_name source). Thus the description does not need to compensate, and a baseline score of 3 is appropriate because it does not add extra semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Restricts LMCP's OneDrive access to a specific folder.' It uses a specific verb (restricts) and identifies the resource (OneDrive access). It distinguishes from sibling tools (onedrive_read_file, onedrive_delete_file, etc.) by explaining it is a scoping configuration that affects all other OneDrive tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to limit LMCP's OneDrive operations to a specific folder. It explains the effect ('all OneDrive tools... only work inside the allowed folder') and how to undo it ('Pass an empty folder to remove the restriction'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the usage context is straightforward.

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