folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses actions and their required parameters (e.g., trash requires folder_id, restore recovers from trash). However, it does not mention side effects, permanence of trash, permissions needed, or rate limits, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, one optional note, and a bulleted-like list of actions with required fields. No redundancy, every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers actions and parameter requirements well. However, it omits return values (e.g., what 'list' returns, whether create returns the new folder). This lack slightly reduces completeness for an agent expecting to use the output.

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 marks folder_id and name as optional, but the description clarifies conditional requirements: 'create' requires name, 'rename' requires both folder_id and name, etc. This adds critical meaning beyond schema, which has 0% coverage. Without this, agents would not know which parameters are required per action.

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's purpose: 'Organize videos and assets into folders.' It then enumerates five specific actions (list, create, rename, trash, restore) with their requirements, making the resource and verbs explicit. This differentiates it from sibling tools by focusing on folder management.

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 includes an 'OPTIONAL' note about using folders for organization, implying when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., assets, videos). Usage guidance is present but lacks exclusion criteria.

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