organize_project_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral traits. It mentions no side effects, such as moving or copying items, requiring existing folders, whether the operation is reversible, or how it may affect the project's file structure. This is insufficient for a tool that likely modifies the project's organization.

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 a single succinct sentence with no redundant words or filler. However, the conciseness is achieved at the cost of missing critical detail; it is not ideal concise but rather minimal, though still well-formatted and front-loaded.

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 complexity of organizing items, the absence of output schema, annotations, and any parameter explanation leaves significant gaps. There is no mention of how the tool organizes items of what the expected outcome is, or what happens when no parameters are provided. The description is too incomplete to support payload and execution expectations.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'structure' or 'customFolders'. The enum values 'type', 'usage', 'custom' are left undefined, and the relationship between 'structure' and 'customFolders' is not clarified. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter list.

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 states a specific action ('Organize project items') and the target resource ('folders'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_folder or collect_files. However, 'project items' is slightly vague, leaving room to clarify whether it refers to assets, compositions, or other project nodes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites, limitations, or use cases for different values of 'structure' (type/usage/custom). The description simply restates the core purpose without contextualizing the scenarios where this tool is the right choice.

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