update_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It lists the actions but does not disclose behavioral nuances such as whether setting trashed=true moves the folder to trash and trashed=false restores it, what happens to the folder's contents upon trashing, permission requirements, or reversibility of each 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence using clear action verbs. Every word contributes value, and there is zero redundancy. It is an exemplar of conciseness.

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 is a multi-operation mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description covers the primary actions but omits important context such as return values, interaction effects (e.g., moving a trashed folder), and edge cases like partial updates. The agent would be underinformed for safe invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It effectively maps each operation to a parameter (rename→name, move→parentFolderId, star/unstar→starred, trash/restore→trashed), adding semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not clarify value behavior (e.g., boolean toggles) or parameter interdependencies.

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 explicitly enumerates four distinct operations (rename, move, star/unstar, trash/restore) on the folder resource. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from sibling tools like update_file, delete_folder, or create_folder.

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 implies when to use the tool—whenever you need to rename, move, star, or trash/restore a folder—but it provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. For example, there is no mention that delete_folder handles permanent deletion, which could lead to misuse.

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