wrike_update_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update', implying a mutation, but does not reveal the nature of that mutation (e.g., modifying fields, sharing changes, restoring from recycle bin), required permissions, reversibility, or possible side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that can alter folder/project state.

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 sentence: 'Update an existing folder or project'. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, with no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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?

This tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The one-sentence description is insufficient to understand the full behavior, return values, or side effects. For example, it doesn't explain that it can update title, description, shared users, or project status, nor what happens when restore is used. The description leaves too much unstated.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the schema carries the load for parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but given the high schema coverage, the 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 uses the specific verb 'Update' and clearly identifies the resource as 'an existing folder or project'. This distinguishes it from many sibling update tools (e.g., update_task, update_contact) that operate on different resource types. However, it doesn't elaborate on what aspects can be updated, which is a minor omission.

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, and no exclusion criteria. With numerous sibling update tools present, the description provides no contextual differentiation beyond the resource name. This leaves the agent without information about appropriate use cases.

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