Update folder metadata

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds that only metadata attributes like color/icon/assigned credential are affected. However, it does not disclose partial-update semantics, how absent fields are handled, or authentication/resource-selection requirements.

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 repeats the same information twice: 'Update folder metadata' and 'Updates the metadata ... of a folder.' The second sentence adds only a field list already visible in the schema, making the description somewhat redundant despite being short.

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 tool with no required parameters and no folder identifier in the schema, the description does not explain how the folder is identified or what happens when only some metadata fields are provided. An agent can guess the basic operation but not confidently invoke it correctly in all cases.

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 needed to explain parameter meanings, but it only loosely maps credentialId to 'assigned credential' and omits the name parameter entirely. It provides no type, value, or behavior context beyond the raw schema property names.

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?

States a concrete operation on a specific resource (folder metadata) and explicitly names the fields affected: color, icon, and assigned credential. It is clear enough to distinguish the tool's purpose, though it doesn't explicitly contrast it with termix_hosts_rename_folder or clarify whether 'name' belongs to this operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over rename_folder, update_ssh_host, or other host-update siblings. It also does not explain prerequisites such as how the target folder is selected or whether this should be used for partial updates.

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