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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: filing causes the project to inherit the folder's members (a permission/access side effect) and explains how to reverse it by omitting folderId.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the reversal path, then the discovery hint. No sentence is 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 two-parameter mutation tool with a destructive annotation and no output schema, the description covers the key facts: what changes, the membership inheritance side effect, and how to undo it. It does not mention permission requirements for filing into a shared folder, a minor gap.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the omit/null semantics for folderId. The description reinforces rather than extends that meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Move one of your projects into a folder, or out of one") and defines the domain concept of folders immediately. It clearly separates this from sibling tools like update_project or edit_project, which operate on project content rather than placement.

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?

Gives clear conditions: call with a folderId to file, call with none to unfile, and points to list_folders for discovering valid folders. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer this over a sibling such as share_project or update_project, so 4 rather than 5.

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