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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds the target state ('automatic per-form Drive folder') but does not say what happens to the previously assigned folder or its contents, nor any auth/rate-limit behavior. Given annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence with no waste, front-loading both the action ('Return') and the outcome ('automatic per-form Drive folder'). Ideal size for a simple one-parameter reset tool.

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 no explanation, annotations carry the safety profile, and the single parameter is fully documented. However, for a destructive reset the description omits what happens to the existing custom folder/contents, which an agent may need before invoking; that gap keeps it at 3.

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% for the single 'form' parameter, so the schema fully documents accepted identifiers (id, slug, or push handle). The description adds no parameter detail, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Return') and resource ('form's automatic per-form Drive folder'), and the phrase 'automatic per-form' implicitly distinguishes it from fillo_set_drive_folder. It does not name the sibling alternative, but the reset action is clear from the description and title.

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 implies the usage scenario (revert a form whose Drive folder was customized), but never states when to choose this over fillo_set_drive_folder, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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