organize_project_bins

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the non-destructive guarantee ("never deletes or renames media"), the root-only default scope, and the existence of a preview mode. It does not say whether missing bins are created automatically or what the report contains, which matters for a batch mutation on a project panel.

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 organizing action and its safety constraint are front-loaded, and the bin taxonomy is packed into one dense clause. The long enumeration of bin names and file types is information-dense but borders on a listing that could have lived in a schema.

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-flag batch mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, safety, and preview but leaves open what happens when target bins are absent, how ambiguous items are classified, and what the report returns. Just adequate, not 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces `dryRun` as a preview and implies the default root-only scope behind `all`, but adds no format or behavioral detail beyond the schema text, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (organize the Project panel into named bins) and enumerates exactly what goes into each of the six bins. An agent can tell this is a whole-panel sorting tool, distinct from the single-item siblings like move_item_to_bin or move_items_to_bin.

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?

"Only moves items that sit loose in the root (dryRun to preview)" establishes a clear default scope and a safety path, and the `all` parameter implies when to widen it. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (move_items_to_bin, create_bin) for agents who want finer control.

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