Manage folders and sidebar groups

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing critical behavioral details: 'never a permanent delete', creations detach to drive root or go to trash with trashContents=true, delete-group only detaches folders, and null semantics for set-poster and move-to-group. This adds significant value without contradicting the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations.

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 dense single paragraph packed with essential information for all 10 actions. Every sentence earns its place, but the structure relies heavily on semicolons and could benefit from bullet points to improve scanability. It is appropriately sized for the complexity, though not maximally clean.

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 an 8-parameter, 10-action tool with no output schema, the description covers all actions, permissions, and edge cases (trash vs detach, null handling). However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success object, folder details), which would help given the lack of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description layers action-dependent semantics on top: groupId usage varies by action, title is required only for specific actions, and null behavior for posterCreationId/groupId is clarified. This enriches the bare schema descriptions with contextual interaction rules.

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 opens with 'Folder CRUD plus sidebar organisation on the account's cloud drive,' which clearly states the tool's scope. It then enumerates all 10 actions (create, rename, delete, set-favorite, set-poster, move-to-group, group actions), making its purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from siblings like list_folders.

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 provides context on when to use the tool by listing its actions and noting permission requirements ('needs the "manage" scope; "list-groups" only needs "read"'). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, though the scope is clear enough for a dispatcher-style tool.

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