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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the API enforces category boundaries and queues affected documents for reindexing, which goes beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the side-effect detail second. No filler, no redundancy with the title or schema.

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 need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the two operations and the reindexing side effect, leaving only minor gaps like whether category assignment is required or how moves across boundaries fail.

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 the schema already documents name, id, parentId, categoryId, order, and the action discriminators. The description only names the two actions and the rename/move intent; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Create or update a folder') and elaborates the two modes, distinguishing action=create from action=update (rename/move). It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as save_category or delete_folder.

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?

It implies when each action applies ('action=update can rename or move an existing folder'), giving some routing guidance, but never states when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., delete_folder, list_workspace_structure) or any prerequisites for calling it.

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