add_personal_resource_to_folder

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

Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false), and idempotency (idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds the 'account:write' scope and confirms the put-into-folder action, which is consistent with the annotations and provides some extra context, but it does not explain what happens on duplicate adds or other behavioral nuances.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action without filler. The parenthetical scope note adds value, but the overall brevity leaves room for parameter detail without becoming bloated.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify whether the folder_id must reference a personal folder, whether the resource must already exist, what happens on duplicate placement, or what the response will contain, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate, but it does not. It mentions application/database types, matching resource_type, but does not clarify resource_id semantics, folder_id ownership, or the meaning of the optional position parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a clear verb ('Puts') with a specific resource ('an application or database') and target context ('personal folder'), so an agent can tell what it does. It distinguishes reasonably from sibling add_workspace_resource_to_folder via the 'personal folder' wording, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like add_workspace_resource_to_folder or remove_personal_resource_from_folder. It includes a scope note ('account:write') but lacks prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this route is appropriate.

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