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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), so the description is not the primary carrier here. Beyond that, it adds no behavioral context: it does not say whether the quiz leaves the old folder, whether this needs edit rights on both folders, or what the non-idempotency hint means in practice.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and destination are stated immediately.

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 two-parameter move with full schema coverage and a complete annotation set, the description is nearly sufficient. It would be stronger if it mentioned authorization requirements or what happens when the quiz is already in the target folder, given the idempotent=false hint.

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% and both parameters are documented inline, including the useful pointer to folder://list for folder_id. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a concrete verb ('Перемещает') and resource ('опрос') plus the target container ('в другую папку пользователя'), so the operation is unmistakable. It does not differentiate itself from folder-management siblings such as manage_workspace_folder or set_workspace_member_folders, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no indication of when this tool should be chosen over alternatives, nor any prerequisites, side effects, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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