Api folders partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds nothing beyond them. Worse, 'viewed or edited' muddies the picture by implying a read capability on what annotations mark as a non-idempotent write.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but the sentence carries no actionable information and does not front-load scope, required id, or partial-update semantics.

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 endpoint with an opaque free-form body, no output schema, and only four annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing about accepted fields, merge vs replace behavior, and permissions. Substantially more disclosure is needed for this complexity level.

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% and the body parameter is an unconstrained object with additionalProperties=true, so the schema tells the agent nothing about which folder fields can be patched. The description does not list a single updatable field or explain the id/body relationship, so it entirely fails to compensate.

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 generic CRUD boilerplate: 'allows folders to be viewed or edited' restates the title without stating that this is a PATCH-style partial update of a single folder identified by id. It gives no way to distinguish it from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_folders_update, ciso_assistant_api_folders_retrieve, or ciso_assistant_api_folders_partial_update... (this tool itself).

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (full update vs partial update vs retrieve), and no prerequisites. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the partial-update operation rather than a read.

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