update_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the response includes the resolved path, letting the agent confirm the result without a follow-up call, and explains the parent_id null semantics. It does not cover error cases like invalid parent folders or cycles, but the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The main operation is front-loaded, followed by parameter constraints and a valuable response-behavior note. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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 simple three-parameter update tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the operation, the required/optional parameter relationship, the null case, and the response format. Missing edge-case details such as folder-name conflicts or move-cycle prevention would improve completeness, but the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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. It adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that name triggers a rename, parent_id triggers a move, null means top level, and at least one of the two is required. This is strong compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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 specific verbs ('rename', 'move') tied to the folder resource, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_folder, delete_folder, and list_folders. The operation is unmistakable even without examining the schema.

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?

It provides clear conditions: at least one of name/parent_id must be supplied, and parent_id null targets the top level. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the purpose statement makes the intended use obvious.

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