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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states that the tool updates fields but does not mention side effects, permanence, required permissions, or whether the folder must exist. It also does not clarify how the group field's null value is handled (removal), which is only in the schema. The description is silent on behavioral nuances that an agent needs for safe invocation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the mutable attributes. There is no redundancy or filler; every word 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?

Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the tool returns (if anything), whether folder_id must be valid, or any error conditions. An agent cannot fully predict the outcome or requirements beyond the schema. More context is needed for a mutation tool.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description lists the updatable fields, which mirrors the schema but adds no additional meaning. It does not explain nuances like the group null semantics or interactions between fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 action (update) and the resource (folder), and lists the specific attributes that can be modified: name, root_path, git_remote, hostname, or group. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_folder, archive_folder, or get_folder. The verb-resource pair is unambiguous.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would lead an agent to choose update_folder over other folder-related tools (e.g., get_folder for retrieval, archive_folder for archiving). The context is implied only by the verb, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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