custom_fields_update_custom_field_folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does not add any behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, such as side effects, permission needs, or impact on associated fields. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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 a single, concise phrase with no filler words. It is well-structured and easy to parse, but it is extremely terse and lacks any additional context that could be valuable without being verbose. It is appropriately concise, though it does not take advantage of the space to add clarity.

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 an update operation with no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the update entails (e.g., renaming a folder), whether it returns anything, or other operational details. The schema requires 'id' and 'name', but the description does not help an agent understand the effect of the operation or any caveats. This is insufficient for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 67% — the 'name' and 'locationId' parameters have descriptions, while 'id' does not. The tool description adds no parameter-level guidance, and it does not compensate for the undocumented 'id'. The schema carries most of the semantic load, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update Custom Field Folder Name' clearly states the verb (update) and the object (custom field folder name). It is distinct from sibling tools like custom_fields_create_custom_field_folder or custom_fields_delete_custom_field_folder, and from custom_fields_update_custom_field which targets a field, not a folder. However, it does not elaborate on what a folder is or any nuances, so it is clear but not fully differentiated beyond the name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing folder id), no context about typical use cases, and no exclusion criteria. The description does not help an agent decide between this and related update/create/delete folder tools beyond the implied operation.

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