Organize Photo Files

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that moving files is destructive. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: supported formats (JPG, PNG, TIFF, HEIC, RAW), the ability to strip GPS for privacy, and the recommendation to use dry_run for preview. These details help the agent understand side effects and safe invocation. While it doesn't describe the exact move/copy default, that is covered by the copy_instead_of_move parameter and the destructive annotation.

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 two sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second adds supported formats and key features. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy, and the structure is highly scannable.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: file formats, date-based organization, camera grouping, GPS stripping, and the dry_run preview. However, it does not describe the return value or response format (despite the response_format parameter), and it doesn't mention the unknown_date_folder default behavior. These are minor gaps given the high schema coverage, so the overall context is adequate but not perfectly complete.

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 89%, so most parameters are self-explanatory. The description adds semantic context beyond the schema by explaining the core purpose (date-based folders via EXIF) and explicitly linking group_by_camera and strip_gps to real use cases. It also mentions dry_run as a preview mode, enriching the meaning of that parameter. Given the high schema coverage, the description provides complementary insights that go beyond merely restating properties.

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 explicitly states 'Organize photos into date-based folders using EXIF metadata', which is a specific verb (organize), resource (photos), and method (date-based folders via EXIF). It also lists supported formats and additional features like grouping by camera and GPS stripping, clearly distinguishing it from generic tools like file_organizer_organize_files or file_organizer_organize_music.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (photo organization with EXIF metadata) and a critical usage tip: 'Use dry_run=true to preview changes.' It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like organize_music, but the photo-specific focus makes it evident. The lack of explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance prevents a 5, but the context is sufficient for a 4.

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