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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing non-obvious side effects: permission self-upgrade from Viewer to Creator, seat billing impact, and admin notification emails. It also discloses return values (id and shortId) that the absence of an output schema would otherwise leave unknown, and warns about non-unique names.

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, each carrying distinct information: what it does and returns, the deduplication caveat, and the side effects. The primary purpose and the immediate follow-up path are front-loaded with 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?

For a mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape, side effects, and the prerequisite check. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing, and the destructiveHint=true annotation is consistent with the billing/email side effects described.

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 the parameter definitions already carry their own meaning. The description nevertheless adds real semantics for 'name' — that names are not unique and duplicates are permitted — which the schema's length constraint does not convey.

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 plus scope: "Create a folder in the team to organize Jams into." It also distinguishes itself from listFolders (reuse case) and updateJam (the follow-up filing call), so an agent can place it among siblings without opening a 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 an explicit when-not plus the alternative: "call listFolders first if you mean to reuse an existing folder rather than add another one with the same name." It also tells the agent what to do next (updateJam) after creation, leaving no routing ambiguity.

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