Photos: Folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds a real behavioral rule: a name already present in the parent is refused rather than overwriting. It also discloses the File Station-write prerequisite for the fallback path. It stops short of explaining why this mutating-but-non-deleting tool is flagged destructive, which would have closed the loop.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, then the collision rule, then sibling routing. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, failure behavior, prerequisites, and all sibling alternatives, while annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries parameter semantics. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this correctly is missing.

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% and every parameter — name, space, action, folder, parent, item_id — is documented inline, including per-action applicability. The description adds little beyond that, only hinting at the name-collision constraint. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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 specific verbs (create, rename, set cover) against a specific resource (folder in Synology Photos) and immediately scopes itself away from siblings like copy_photos, move_photos, and delete_photo_folders. An agent knows exactly what this tool does and does not cover without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use copy_photos/move_photos for copying or moving, delete_photo_folders for deletion, and File Station's create_folder/rename for non-Photos folders, with the caveat that File Station write must be enabled or the user must act in DSM. That is when-to-use plus when-not-to-use plus alternatives in two sentences.

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