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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the scope is enforced across ALL onedrive_* and general file tools including path traversal from the OneDrive top level, searches are filtered, a moved/deleted folder closes the OneDrive until reconfigured, and changes take effect immediately.

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 core effect, then consequences and the removal case. It is dense but each sentence carries distinct information; only the empty-folder restatement slightly overlaps the schema.

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 configuration tool with a full output schema and clear annotations, the description covers what the tool does, its system-wide blast radius, and the removal/recovery conditions. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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%, so the schema already documents root_name, folder and confirm, including the empty-string semantics and confirm-must-be-true rule. The description's note that an empty folder removes the limit repeats the schema, adding no new parameter detail. Baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Limits LMCP's access to one OneDrive to a single folder.' It also scopes the effect to a well-defined system, which distinguishes it from the onedrive_* file-manipulation siblings and from onedrive_root.

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?

It states when the tool applies (to restrict access to one OneDrive) and how to undo it ('Pass an empty folder to remove the limit'). It does not name a direct alternative, but there is no competing scope-setting sibling, so the context is clear enough.

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