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

Annotations already declare the write semantics (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false). The description contributes one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations — a blank name yields a 422 — but says nothing about permissions, duplicates, or nesting behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, with the validation caveat second. No 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description covers what it does plus one failure mode; only sibling routing and permission requirements are 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 description coverage is 100%, including a detailed 'context' parameter, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline is 3. The description's note that a blank name returns 422 adds a validation constraint, a small increment over the schema.

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 ('Create a signature folder') and adds the organizing purpose, so it is distinguishable from update_folder and delete_folder. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

There is no statement of when to create a folder versus updating one or using list_folders, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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