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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that @platform folders carry their own access controls and document webhooks, so a move can change visibility and integration notifications — non-obvious side effects an agent could not infer from destructiveHint=false. It does not address failure modes or what happens to the item's prior sharing state, so it is not exhaustive.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, the risk/warning context follows, and the confirmation instruction plus a compact example close it out. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of 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 two-parameter mutation tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the only missing pieces: the semantic restriction (same space), the side-effect warning, the human-confirmation policy, and a call example. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 baseline is 3; the example adds real value by showing concrete id formats ("12:document:sd_1" and "12:folder:7"), clarifying that both parameters take prefixed typed ids rather than bare values. It stops short of documenting where such ids come from.

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 an item into another folder in the same space") and implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like update/edit_source by naming the folder-reparenting operation. An agent can tell immediately this is not a rename or content edit.

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 a clear when-to-use context (moving between folders in the same space) and an explicit procedural instruction: "Confirm with the user before calling this." It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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