Move videos into a folder

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses a significant side effect the agent could not otherwise know: moving into a shared folder shares the videos, except private ones. It also explains partial-failure behavior (unmanageable videos come back as skipped) and imposes a human-confirmation gate before mutation. This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the plan gate before the action, and every clause carries information (gating, destination, side effect, confirmation, partial failure). The parenthetical and exception clause make it slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by describing the skipped-videos return behavior. Combined with the plan gate, sharing side effect, and confirmation flow, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though a fuller picture of the success response shape is absent.

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% and both parameters are already documented, including that folderId null means top level. The description restates the null-to-top-level behavior but adds no new syntax, constraints, or semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ("Move videos into a folder") and clarifies the destination semantics including the null/top-level case. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like update_video, so an agent must infer that metadata changes belong elsewhere, but the operation itself 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?

It gives a hard prerequisite (Recordful Pro only, check get_status recorder.account.plan first) and an explicit interaction requirement (show the user the exact change and wait for confirmation). It also carves out an exception case (private videos are not shared). What's missing is naming an alternative tool for related-but-different operations.

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