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

Annotations already indicate the tool is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that a filed project inherits the folder's members and that omitting folderId removes the project from its folder, which goes beyond the raw schema.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then provides the key behavioral consequence (folder membership inheritance) and the concrete removal instruction, all in a compact, well-structured format.

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 simple two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and relevant annotations, the description covers the main operation, the removal case, the organizational context, and how to discover valid folders. No critical invocation detail appears 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, though it reinforces the folderId-omission behavior already stated in the schema, so the baseline of 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 clearly states a specific action—moving a project into or out of a folder—and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_folders. The title and first sentence align and leave no ambiguity about the tool's resource and operation.

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 gives explicit usage instructions for both filing (with folderId) and unfiling (without folderId). It also points to list_folders for discovering available folders, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or contrast it with alternatives like delete_project.

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