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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond the raw endpoint: it doesn't say whether the update is full-replace or partial, whether the folder must exist, auth needs, or what happens to unmentioned fields.

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, zero waste and front-loaded with the action. Very efficient, though the endpoint string is arguably redundant with the name.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema and a nested body object gets a bare-bones description. Nothing explains the mutation semantics an agent would need to call it safely or 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?

Schema coverage is only 50% and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the endpoint template ({id} is implied). The auto-generated name behavior lives in the schema, not the description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update CEX signal bot folder'), which cleanly identifies it against the many sibling PUT folder tools (dex, prediction, strategy_code). It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from those siblings in the text, relying on the name alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus put_bot_signal_dex_folder_id, post_bot_signal_cex_folder (create), or get_bot_signal_cex_folder_id. Only the HTTP verb implies a modification context.

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