Api folders update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context such as permissions, side effects, or what the body update affects, and its 'viewed or edited' phrasing adds little beyond the annotations.

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 single sentence is brief, but it is boilerplate and under-specified. 'Viewed or edited' is vague and includes read behavior irrelevant to an update endpoint, so the brevity does not earn 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should at least explain update versus partial update and the role of the body payload. It instead remains generic and leaves the agent without enough context to invoke it reliably.

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% for both parameters, and the description never mentions the required id or the body object. It does not compensate for the schema gap by explaining what body fields represent or how the update payload is structured.

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 says the endpoint allows folders to be viewed or edited, naming the resource but using generic boilerplate. For an update tool, it conflates read and write behavior and does not distinguish it from siblings such as folders_retrieve or folders_partial_update.

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 partial_update, retrieve, or create. It provides only a generic statement that folders can be viewed or edited, leaving the agent to infer the update-specific use case.

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