Use FolderBridge extensions

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by mentioning that job_cancel terminates the owned worker process tree, that external extension code requires exact-hash local approval, and that globally authorized actions must be enabled. This adds meaningful safety context beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint 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 somewhat dense and list-like, but it is still focused and each sentence contributes necessary information about actions, job handling, or authorization. It could be organized into clearer bullets, but it is far from bloated or redundant.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—8 parameters, multiple actions, job lifecycle, and extension authorization—the description covers the essential operational context. It lacks explicit output format details, but no output schema is provided, and the action-specific behavior is sufficiently described for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already high at 88%, and the description adds useful semantic relationships, such as job_id being returned by an explicit or auto-promoted Job action and workspace_id being required for workspace-bound operations when multiple workspaces are configured. This clarifies parameter behavior beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly identifies this as a stable extension gateway and enumerates the exact actions (list, info, run, job_list, job_status, job_cancel). It also distinguishes the tool from ordinary file operations by noting that installing more extensions does not add MCP tool names, making its role unambiguous.

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 practical guidance on how to use the tool: it explains the purpose of each action, how long foreground actions can be promoted to jobs, and that extension code requires approval. It does not explicitly mention competing alternatives, but it gives enough context for an agent to decide when this gateway is the appropriate entry point.

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