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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful fact that asset moves happen by passing asset_ids, but says nothing about permissions, whether assets are removed from their previous folder, or partial-failure behavior for a multi-mode tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the three modes and names the triggering parameter, with no filler. Slightly dense but every clause 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?

With an output schema present and full schema descriptions, the description need not explain returns. It covers the three primary modes, but leaves open whether modes can be combined in one call and what constraints apply, a minor gap for a five-parameter 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 all five parameters including parent_id=null for root are already documented in the schema. The description only restates asset_ids and the operation grouping, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the structured 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?

Names a specific verb (update) plus resource (folder) and enumerates the three distinct mutations it performs: rename, reparent, and asset move. An agent can distinguish it from create_folder, delete_folder, and get_folder in the sibling list without opening a schema, though the siblings are not explicitly named.

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 which parameter drives which mode (asset_ids triggers the asset move), which is light usage guidance, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like remove_assets_folder or how to combine modes. No when-not guidance or prerequisites are given.

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