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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the CONFLICT refusal semantics of expectedWorkspaceRevision and the mandatory 'why' for workspace items. It doesn't explain what the destructive aspect means concretely (moving out of a source folder) but the annotations plus these details make the contract clear.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the move/unfile duality leads, then the folder resolution rules, then the revision guard. Dense but every clause carries a distinct rule; the parenthetical resolution order is slightly redundant with the schema but not wasteful.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the mutation contract (folder required, null unfiles, why required for workspace, revision conflict). Only gaps are cross-workspace/team permission behavior and where the artifact ends up on failure — minor for a move tool.

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 every parameter (folder, artifactId, why, team, expectedWorkspaceRevision) is already documented in the schema. The description largely restates the schema's folder resolution order and the 'why' requirement rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 artifact into a folder') plus the inverse operation ('or unfile it'), which immediately separates it from sibling tools like artifact_update, artifact_delete, and folder_* tools. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 operational context: when folder is null the artifact is unfiled, workspace artifacts require 'why', and expectedWorkspaceRevision triggers a CONFLICT refusal. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g., artifact_update for renaming) or state permission prerequisites, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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