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

Annotations indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds business permission and tier constraints, but does not disclose response format, error behavior, or side effects like notification triggers. For a mutation tool, this provides some but not full behavioral context.

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 concise with four sentences, front-loading the core purpose before providing usage guidelines. No redundant information or fluff.

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 high parameter count (29), nested objects, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It provides excellent usage context but lacks parameter explanations and result details, leaving the agent uninformed about many required fields.

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?

The input schema has 29 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only says 'editable folder-backed product fields' and does not explain any parameter meaning, defaults, or relationships. This fails to add value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool updates editable folder-backed product fields for digital files or courses. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_folder_product or update_folder_item by specifying the resource as folder-backed products.

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?

Extensive usage guidelines provided: check business permissions first, FREE businesses cannot use it, call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, show grace-period warnings and resubscribe links, and never proceed when access is blocked. This explicitly tells when and when not to use the tool and suggests a prerequisite tool.

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