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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context — that the setting is optional and improves file discovery — but says nothing about whether a prior value is overwritten, what happens on an invalid path, or any permission requirements.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is recorded and followed by content and optionality. No filler, though the final benefit sentence is the weakest and is slightly promotional in tone.

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?

A simple, three-parameter setter with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema; the description covers what is stored and why it matters. Adequate for an agent to invoke correctly, with only the overwrite semantics left unstated.

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 all three parameters (link_id, path, note) are already documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no further meaning about parameter format or relationships; the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the weight.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource — 'Record where the variations folder is' — and clarifies what that folder contains (variation requests, instructions, change orders), which separates it from siblings like set_drawings_folder or set_contract_folder. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Optional' is the only when-to-use signal, combined with a benefit statement ('helps Vari8ion find the files faster'). There is no statement of prerequisites (e.g., that start_project_link must have run first — only implied by the link_id parameter description) and no explicit guidance on when to skip or defer this call.

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