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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds nothing beyond restating the mutation via 'Update'. It never says what is being modified (only the folder name), that the change is non-destructive/reversible, or what happens when the body is omitted despite the schema noting auto-generation.

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, front-loaded with the action. The raw 'PUT /api/v2/...' fragment is largely redundant for an agent that already has the tool binding, but it costs little.

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 with a nested request body, no output schema, and no annotations covering mutation specifics, the description is silent on what fields are updatable, the auto-generated-name behavior on an empty body, and any permission requirements. An agent cannot call this confidently beyond passing an id.

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 50%: the bare 'body' object carries no description, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all, only echoing the path template. With a nested body object and half the schema undocumented, the description should compensate and does not.

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 (Update) and resource (prediction signal bot folder), which is distinguishable from the sibling delete_/post_/get_ variants on the same resource. The phrasing 'prediction signal bot folder' is slightly scrambled but an agent can still route correctly without opening the schema.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as post_bot_signal_prediction_folder for creation or put_bot_signal_prediction_folder_id versus the bot-level put_bot_signal_prediction_id. The agent must infer scope from the name alone.

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