apply_organize

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by stating the default action is copy (non-destructive) and that move is conditional on server settings and user approval, which clarifies the boundary. This goes beyond the bare annotation and helps an agent understand the mutating nature and its constraints. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the crucial condition for move. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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, nested objects, and an output schema, the description provides a high-level summary of the operation and its one key constraint (move requires approval). Given the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety (destructive), the description is sufficient to guide an agent on when and how to invoke it. It could mention that approval_token comes from preview_organize, but that is hinted by the extended description of the token in the schema and the tool name.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented. The description adds no extra explanation of individual parameters, but it does frame the approval_token as part of an 'approved' plan, which implicitly ties the token to the preview step. This is marginal additional meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool executes an approved organization plan (승인된 정리 계획을 실제로 수행합니다), distinguishing it from preview (preview_organize) and undo (undo_last_organize) siblings. It also specifies the default mode (copy) and the condition for move, providing a specific verb+resource and operational scope.

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 gives clear context: it applies an approved plan, and explicitly states that move mode requires both server settings and user approval (이동은 서버 설정과 사용자 승인이 모두 있어야 합니다). This informs when move is permissible, but it does not explicitly say 'use after preview_organize' or exclude scenarios, though that is implied by the tool's name and sibling structure. Lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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