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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, so the description does not need to re-declare that. It adds the auth-scope requirement (`folders:write`), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about what happens to unspecified fields, whether updates are reversible, or what is returned.

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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and identifier format, then optionality, then the auth requirement. No filler, though the scope clause could be merged more tightly.

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 an 8-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description gives only the minimum: identifier format, optionality, and auth scope. It is enough to attempt the call but leaves the meaning of most parameters and the effect of the update unexplained.

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 38%: icon, name, color, isPrivate, and description carry no schema text at all. The description does not compensate, adding nothing beyond the identifier format the schema already states and a generic "all fields optional" that does not explain value formats for the undocumented fields.

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 ("Update folder metadata") and pins the target with the identifier prefix fld_…, which cleanly separates it from pm_create_folder and pm_delete_folder. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent infers the boundary from the name alone.

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?

"All fields optional" implies partial-update semantics, and the `folders:write` scope hints at the permission needed. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to related tools such as pm_update_list or pm_create_folder.

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