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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing a nuanced tri-state behavior for parentId, explaining what happens when parentId is omitted, set to a string, or null. It also discloses that a string parentId combined with clearParent: true is rejected, which is exactly the kind of behavioral edge case an agent needs to know.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first clause states the tool's purposeaving, and the remainder focuses entirely on the one genuinely tricky parameter interaction. Every sentence earns its place, with no padding or repetition of schema details.

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?

All seven parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description resolves the only ambiguous behavior around parent reassignment. It does not mention return values or error handling, but given the absence of an output schema and the schema's complete parameter coverage, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful parameter semantics by clarifying the interaction between parentId and clearParent特效 — specifically that omitting both leaves the parent unchanged and that string+true is invalid. This is extra value beyond the schema's property-level descriptions.

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 opens with 'Update a folder' and immediately enumerates the mutable fields: name, parent, color, description, or sort. This clearly identifies the verb and resource, and the sibling list contains folder-create/delete/get/list, so there is no ambiguity about which operation this tool performs.

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?

Though it does not explicitly name alternatives like folder-create or folder-delete, the usage context is unambiguous: this tool modifies an existing folder. The tri-state explanation also provides clear guidance on how to leave the parent unchanged versus moving to root.

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