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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does deliver real signal: the '[PUBLIC WRITE]' tag flags a mutating, publicly visible operation, and 'index it in the sidecar database' discloses a non-obvious side effect. It stops short of stating whether the move is reversible, whether the original proposed cell is removed, or what permissions/confirmation are needed.

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 the write-scope tag first and the action second; every clause carries information. The bracketed '[PUBLIC WRITE]' convention is slightly opaque but compact and useful.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and one side effect but omits state preconditions, failure behavior, and what the caller receives back. Adequate to attempt a call, thin for calling it confidently.

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% — both 'id' (cell ID to accept) and 'folder' (folder path) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, e.g. whether 'folder' must be the source or destination location.

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 (move) plus the exact resource transition (proposed cell → accepted cells) and the secondary effect (indexing in the sidecar database). An agent can distinguish this from generic cell creation, though the complementary sibling 'reject' is never named.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'proposed → accepted' framing suggests this is the approval step for a pending cell, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (must the cell be in 'proposed' state?), and no pointer to 'reject' as the alternative path.

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