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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on required permissions, whether name is the only mutable field, or what happens to unspecified fields — and the REST path is just a restatement of the operation.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence (the raw PUT path) is largely redundant with the tool name and schema, but it is brief and does aid mapping to API docs.

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 a nested, loosely-typed body object, no output schema, and only half the parameters documented, the description is too thin. It omits request semantics, error conditions, and any indication of what the update returns or affects.

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%: the nested 'body' object has no description and is open-ended (additionalProperties), while id and name are documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional meaning about the body payload or how the auto-generated name behavior works, so it 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Update code strategy folder'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling read/delete variants. It does not, however, differentiate it from near-neighbors like put_strategy_reaction_code_folder_id or put_strategy_llm_session_folder_id, relying on the name alone for that.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (does the folder need to exist?), and no reference to alternative tools such as post_strategy_code_folder for creation. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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