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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the allowed root constraint but does not disclose what happens on conflicts, whether contents are moved recursively, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, compact sentence that gets straight to the point. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 relatively simple folder-move tool, the description covers the core purpose and a key constraint (allowed root). However, it lacks information about error conditions, behavior on existing destinations, or whether the move is recursive. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 0%, and the description adds no explanation of path or new_path. It is unclear whether paths should be full paths, relative to the root, or just folder names. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 clearly states 'Move or rename a folder inside an allowed OpenAkashic root.' It uses a specific verb (move/rename) and resource (folder), and the phrase 'inside an allowed OpenAkashic root' adds scope, distinguishing it from sibling move_note which handles notes.

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 usage when needing to move or rename a folder within the allowed root, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_note or create_folder. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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