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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the move is atomic, it does not copy content, and — critically for a destructiveHint=true tool — sharing exposes the artifact's complete version history, which tells the agent the exposure consequence of audience=shared. It still doesn't state reversibility or required ownership/permission preconditions, so not 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 sentences, front-loaded with the two source modes, and each sentence carries information (mode selection, audience default, exposure/atomicity semantics). Parenthetical nesting makes it denser than ideal, but there is 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 needn't be described. For a 6-parameter mutation, the description covers modes, defaults, and atomicity. The remaining gap is the unexplained qualifier 'eligible' — nothing says what makes an artifact ineligible or what preconditions (ownership, workspace membership) are required.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds value by stating the audience default (internal, shared for external editors) and by pairing artifactIds with the optional destinationFolderId and folder with its id or slug. The 'why' parameter, which is required for workspace writes, is left entirely to 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 (move) and a precise destination (into a workspace), plus the two distinct source modes: standalone artifacts via artifactIds, or a personal folder with its files. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling artifact_move, which an agent could reasonably confuse with this tool.

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?

Usage is implied through the source constraints ('standalone artifacts of yours', 'a personal folder with its files') and the 'or' framing that makes the two modes mutually exclusive. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (artifact_move, folder_share_contents) to route against.

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