Move to folder

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

Annotations already signal idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description adds concrete behavioral details: repeated moves are safe, only folder assignment changes, and contents/ownership/sharing are never affected. It also discloses the explicit failure behavior for inaccessible artifacts or folders, going beyond the structured annotations.

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 sentences carry a lot of value: main action, usage context, parameter guidance, idempotency, side-effect scope, and failure handling. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 small mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, how to get parameters, safety behavior, and failure handling. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly and avoid common mistakes like republishing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics for folder_id by directing users to obtain it from folders and explaining that null moves to Unfiled. It does not elaborate on tenant_id or share_token, but the schema already describes those adequately.

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 operation: filing an owned or collaborative artifact into a personal folder of a connected account. It clearly scopes what the tool changes and distinguishes it from siblings like publish, fork, or delete. The title reinforces the action without being vague.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use after publishing or to organize existing work') and where to get the folder_id ('from folders'). It also provides a clear exclusion: if publication succeeded, retry only the move, not publication, which helps route the agent correctly.

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