edit_project_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states 'edit' without disclosing any side effects, error conditions, or behavioral traits such as whether the operation is atomic, what permissions are required, or what happens if the folder does not exist.

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 extremely short (4 Chinese characters), which is concise but missing critical details. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices informational content for brevity, scoring lower than a well-balanced description.

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?

Given the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the edit operation entails (e.g., renaming, moving, updating metadata), the return value, or any constraints, leaving the agent underinformed.

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% description coverage for all three parameters (id, folder_id, name), so the schema already provides meaning. The tool description adds no further semantics beyond stating the overall purpose, which is adequate given the baseline of 3.

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 is a tautology ("编辑项目文件夹" translates to "Edit project folder"), restating the tool's name without providing any specifics about what aspects of the project folder can be edited. It fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_project_folder and delete_project_folder beyond the verb.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, limitations, or context for its use. It simply states the action without any usage direction.

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