done

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the hard-coded destination (Index > Research), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the folder's contents on a move.

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?

It is a single sentence with no padding and the trigger is front-loaded. The nested quotes and angle-bracket template, however, make it harder to parse than a plain statement would be.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description does too little: it never clarifies the source location semantics, the effect on contents, or how it differs from the sibling 'move'.

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 0% and the single parameter has only a title ('Read This Folder'). The description partially compensates by embedding '<folder>' inside the 'Read this > <folder>' path, indicating the argument names a folder within 'Read this', though the exact format remains ambiguous.

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 name 'done' is opaque on its own, but the description supplies a specific verb (move) and resource (a folder under 'Read this') plus the destination (Index > Research). It is enough to infer the tool's job, but the quoted templated phrasing is cryptic and the name gives no independent signal.

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 implies a trigger condition ('User finished reading'), which is a sliver of usage context. However, it never names the obvious alternative 'move' for arbitrary moves, nor says when not to use this specialized workflow action, leaving routing to inference.

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