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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the mandatory `why` for workspace folders, optimistic concurrency via expectedWorkspaceRevision that refuses with CONFLICT, and the fact that sharing widens folder visibility to external members without touching children. What remains undisclosed is reversibility and the response shape, which is acceptable given an output schema exists.

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 two main capabilities are front-loaded, and no sentence is filler, but the prose is a dense run-on of stacked colons and conditionals ('folder is its id ... or its slug: in workspaceId when given, else in team, else ...') that takes effort to parse. Information density is high at the cost of readability.

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?

Covers required-vs-optional parameters, the conditional `why` requirement, conflict handling, and the sharing side effect, all for a destructive mutation whose safety profile is already carried by annotations and whose return shape is documented by an output schema. Minor gaps: whether both audience and newSlug may be sent together, and how to undo a slug change.

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 3 is the baseline, but the description genuinely adds semantics the schema cannot express: the folder resolution chain (id of any kind, or slug resolved in workspaceId, else team, else personal) and the one-change-per-call constraint on newSlug/audience. That is real added value over field-level descriptions.

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 the specific resource (folder), the two operations it performs (changing a workspace folder's audience, setting newSlug on any folder), and scopes it to one change per call. The closing sentence implies contrast with the folder_share_contents sibling, though it never names it directly.

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?

Clear conditions are given: use newSlug for any folder, audience only for workspace folders, and 'one per call' sets the call pattern. The final sentence tells an agent that sharing via audience does not propagate to child artifacts, which implicitly routes them elsewhere for that, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit 'do not use for X' is stated.

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