set_output_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: persistence scope (applies to the server process and all chats of this client until changed or restart), precondition (folder must already exist on a local disk), refusal rules (drive roots, home, hidden/system/program/app-data/network), env-var override (MCP_ADAPTER_OUTPUT_ROOTS), and subfolder layout behavior.

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 primary effect is front-loaded in sentence one, and the remaining sentences cover constraints, precedence, and persistence without filler. It is dense but slightly long and switches between operational and policy detail, which mildly dilutes scannability.

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 not be explained; what matters — preconditions, refusal cases, scope of the setting, and revert behavior — is all present. For a two-parameter, non-destructive configuration tool this is complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for both parameters: it defines what 'folder' means (the user-granted task folder, must pre-exist, empty string restores default) and what 'per_application_subfolders' does (each application writes into its own subfolder unless false).

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 and resource (write generated scripts/results into a chosen folder) and explicitly contrasts it with the alternative behavior (the adapter's default outputs folder). No sibling tool overlaps this, and an agent can tell immediately it is a configuration/setter tool rather than an execution tool.

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?

Gives explicit ordering guidance ("Call it first in a task that has a folder"), the condition for use (a task that has a folder given/granted by the user), and the condition for reverting (an empty folder goes back to the default). Nothing about when or when-not to call is left to inference.

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