Moves multiple browser profiles to a target folder.

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent). The description adds one genuinely useful behavior detail: the move is scoped 'within the workspace,' which implies cross-workspace moves are impossible. It says nothing about what happens if targetFolderId does not exist, whether the operation is atomic across multiple profile IDs, or what happens to profiles already in the folder.

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 sentence with no filler, and the action and destination are front-loaded. It is slightly redundant with the title but not wasteful.

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 three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the definition covers the essential who/what/where. Remaining gaps (failure behavior for invalid folder IDs, partial-move semantics) are modest, and no output schema means return values need not be explained.

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%, so the schema already explains body (array of profile IDs), workspaceId (-1 = default), and targetFolderId (destination). The description only restates 'one or more browser profiles' and 'specified target folder,' adding no format, constraint, or default information beyond the schema. 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?

The description states a specific verb (moves) and resource (browser profiles) plus the destination (target folder), so it is clearly differentiated from read-only siblings like get_profiles and from update_profile, which changes profile attributes rather than location. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, but the action is 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., update_profile for attribute changes, or folder-creation siblings to ensure the target exists). An agent must infer that this is the reorganization tool purely from the name and description.

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