Put a document, or several, in a folder

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: nothing is deleted, no text changes, and an archived document still moves and remains archived. The archive interaction is exactly the non-obvious detail an agent would otherwise get wrong. What's missing is permission or error behavior for a nonexistent folder.

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 core action and the omit-folder rule are front-loaded, which is good. The closing clause, 'that is how something already archived is filed where it belongs', is wordy and restates the preceding sentence rather than adding information.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important semantic edges: non-destructiveness and archive-preserving moves. A short note on what happens with an invalid folder name would close the remaining gap.

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%, including the subtle 'omit `folder` to remove from every folder' rule and the all-or-nothing batch semantics of `doc`. The description restates the folder-omission rule but adds nothing about `doc`, and the batch atomicity only appears in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: move a document into a folder, or remove it from all folders when `folder` is omitted. That is unambiguous on its own. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling `move` or `folder` tools, so an agent browsing the sibling list cannot tell which filing tool to pick.

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 rather than stated: you file a document, or you unfile it by leaving out `folder`. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, and with a sibling literally named `move` plus a `folder` tool, the boundary is left for the agent to guess.

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