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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description is not obligated to restate it. It adds genuinely new behavioral context: a visibility side effect ('People with access to that folder can then see it'), reversibility, and an auth requirement ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app'). It does not cover failure modes (e.g. nonexistent folder), which keeps it from 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?

The opening two sentences are duplicative: 'Put a presentation in one of your folders' and 'Moves a deck into a folder' convey the same action, so one sentence does not earn its place. The remaining sentences are short and load-bearing, but the redundancy costs a point.

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?

No output schema exists and the schema is fully self-describing, so the description's job is to cover operation semantics. It supplies auth, visibility, and reversibility, which is nearly everything an agent needs for a mutation call; only edge-case behavior (missing folder, permission denial) is 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%, so both parameters are already documented, including their source tools (list_folders, list_presentations). The description restates the folder provenance but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 ('Put a presentation in one of your folders', 'Moves a deck into a folder') and anchors it to the sibling that supplies the folder reference (list_folders). An agent can distinguish this from list_folders, create_share_link, or invite_collaborator without opening any 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 context for use: the folder must come from list_folders, and the operation is reversible ('One call moves it back, so it runs without asking'). It never states an explicit when-not condition or an alternative tool, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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