System Organize

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

The description does not disclose that this tool moves (or copies) files, that it can be destructive (though annotations set destructiveHint=true), or that it has a dry_run mode. The single sentence simply states the high-level action. Annotations already signal destruction, but the description adds no context about safety, reversibility, or side effects, so it falls short.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise and easy to scan. Structure is minimal but not distracting; the lack of formatting is acceptable for such a short description.

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?

Despite high schema coverage, the description is too terse for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what happens on success, the difference between system directories and local fallback, or how this tool relates to other organizing tools. An agent might not know whether to expect a summary, a list of moved files, or errors. More context is needed, especially given the large sibling set.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (e.g., explaining how conflict_strategy interacts with the system dirs or what fallback_to_local implies). Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Organize files into OS-standard system directories' with a list of those directories. This clearly conveys the action and target. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like file_organizer_organize_files, file_organizer_organize_music, etc., relying on the 'system directories' phrase to imply differentiation.

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 its many siblings. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., source_dir must be Downloads/Desktop/Temp) or that it is intended for moving files to OS standard folders. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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