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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key traits: parent_folder_id=null moves to top level, moving into itself/descendant is rejected, and only supplied fields change. These are valuable operational details. It omits auth requirements and return value but covers the most critical behaviors for correct 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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and then lists key behaviors. Every clause adds value—the null parent behavior, cycle rejection, and partial update are all essential. It is both concise and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It covers core behaviors but omits return format, error handling, and explicit parameter semantics for several fields. It is usable but leaves an agent uncertain about what a successful call returns and the exact meaning of some 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?

Schema description coverage is only 13%, so the description must compensate. It explains parent_folder_id behavior and the partial-update semantics ('Only supplied fields change'), and hints at mappings like rename->name, recolor->color. However, it does not clarify the meaning of parameters like icon, description, position, or price beyond those hints, leaving gaps in a low-coverage 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 verb 'Update' with the specific resource 'resource folder' and enumerates the operations (rename, recolor, reorder, reprice, or move). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_resource_folder or get_resource_folder, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 conveys a clear context: it's for updating an existing folder. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., use create_resource_folder for new folders). It provides no exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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