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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds useful context about ownership requirements and compare-and-set, but it does not clarify whether omitted fields are left unchanged or reset, nor does it explain any authorization behavior beyond ownership. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is an adequate but not rich disclosure.

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 with no wasted words. It communicates the action, ownership constraint, and optional concurrency guard efficiently.

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 simple mutation tool with annotations covering safety and a schema that documents the critical id and expected_updated_at fields, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it does not clarify partial-update semantics for optional fields like name and color.

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 50%: id and expected_updated_at are described in the schema, while name and color are only typed with maxLength. The description mentions expected_updated_at and ownership, but adds no meaning for name or color beyond what the schema already implies. At this coverage level, the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a spreadsheet_folder.' It also adds an ownership constraint and mentions compare-and-set, making the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like spreadsheet_folder_read or spreadsheet_folder_delete, but the verb differentiates it sufficiently.

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 implies usage by saying the folder must be one you own and notes an optional compare-and-set mechanism. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus spreadsheet_folder_read, spreadsheet_folder_delete, or spreadsheet_file_update.

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