file_into_folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that apps join existing folders or create new folders only with 2+ apps, and that page 1 apps are left alone by default, but it omits draft/apply behavior, reversibility, and what happens to apps already in folders.

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 front-loaded, compact, and every sentence adds relevant information. There is no repetition or filler.

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?

The description covers the core filing behavior and the nested groups parameter, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it leaves important operational gaps around draft/apply workflow, undoability, and edge cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the required groups object format as {folder name: [app ids]} and clarifies the default first-page behavior, though it does not explicitly state what keep_first_page=false does.

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 verb and resource: file loose apps into folders, with a mapping from folder names to app IDs. It implicitly distinguishes bulk filing from sibling tools like create_folder or move, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'loose apps' and the note that page 1 apps are left alone by default, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings such as create_folder, move, or arrange. The agent can infer the context but is not given exclusions or alternatives.

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