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

Annotations already establish that the tool is mutating, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the key behavioral guarantee that only provided fields are changed and that the folder must already exist, but it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or return value. Given annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core action and the partial-update caveat are front-loaded. Every phrase 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?

For a simple partial update, the core behavior is covered, and annotations handle idempotency and destructiveness. But there is no output schema and the description says nothing about the response, error cases, or the role of idempotencyKey, leaving some uncertainty for an agent invoking the 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?

The schema already documents color, order, and isPinned; the description adds meaning by mapping name, color, order, and pinned status to the updatable fields. However, id and idempotencyKey receive no description-side help, and with 50% schema coverage the description does not fully 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 operation ('updates the name, color, order, or pinned status') and identifies the resource as an existing folder. This clearly distinguishes it from create_folder, delete_folder, get_folder, list_folders, and the update_idea/update_post sibling tools by resource type.

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 clearly frames the tool for modifying an existing folder and explains partial-update semantics: only supplied fields change. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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