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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a mutation but not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context—it does not clarify whether moving replaces existing folder assignments or adds to them, which could be important. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and object, and every word earns its place.

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 description is adequate for a simple move operation, and the presence of an output schema may cover return details. However, it lacks behavioral specifics (e.g., whether existing folder assignments are overwritten or added to), which could affect correct usage. It is minimally complete but not rich.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('Client ID (from list_clients)' and 'Target folder IDs (from list_folders)'), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('move'), a resource ('client'), and a target ('folders'), making the operation unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like move_media_to_folder and move_widget because the resource type is clearly named.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the existence of move_media_to_folder and move_widget, a note such as 'for clients; use move_media_to_folder for media' would help, but it is absent.

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