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

Annotations declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, but the description adds material context annotations cannot express: that this is an organization-wide sharing change, that the source folder should be reviewed first, and that approval behavior is split between configurable MCP approval requirements and always-on business workflow approvals. That approval gating is genuinely useful pre-call information. It does not state reversibility or what happens to existing per-site folder configurations, keeping it below a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the risk warning. The approval sentence is slightly tangential but carries actionable preconditions, so nothing is clearly wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the approval/risk context is covered. But for a mutation that fans out across all sites, the description never says what 'apply' mechanically does (propagate a structure, grant visibility, replace existing folders), leaving the core effect ambiguous.

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?

One required parameter (folderId) with 0% schema description coverage; the schema only supplies type/format/pattern. The description's phrase 'review the source folder first' implicitly identifies folderId as the source folder being propagated, which adds a little meaning, but it does not explain how the folder is resolved or applied across sites.

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: 'Apply a folder across the organization's sites.' An agent knows this is an org-wide folder propagation operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like set_document_folder_visibility or update_document_folder, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Broad sharing/organization change: review the source folder first' implies the appropriate context (high-blast-radius org-wide operation, verify source before calling). However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not or prerequisite conditions for choosing this over per-site folder operations.

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