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

The description communicates that this is a move operation, including the root-level special case, which is useful beyond the bare tool name. Annotations already indicate readOnly=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds limited additional behavioral context such as failure modes, validation, or effects on existing folder membership.

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 description is a single sentence that clearly states the action, the target, and the root-level exception. There is no unnecessary information.

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 simple move tool, the description plus the detailed input schema is largely sufficient. It covers the batch nature ('one or more automations') and the root-level destination, though it does not describe prerequisites like folder existence or what happens if an automation is already in the target folder.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description's mention of 'root level' aligns with the folder_id schema but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Move' with a clear resource ('automations') and destination ('agent folder' or 'root level'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like moveAgentsToFolder and moveClarityProcessesToFolder by the resource type, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool when moving one or more automations into an agent folder or to the root level. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the resource-focused wording makes the intended use unambiguous.

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