update_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, and 'archive' suggests a state change, but the description doesn't state whether archiving is destructive, reversible, whether it cascades to child lists/tasks, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence that wastes no words. It conveys the two primary operations (rename, archive) without redundancy. Could arguably mention more, but at this length it's appropriately brief for what it does.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only 33% parameter coverage, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain the archived flag semantics, whether rename conflicts are possible, permissions required, or the effect of archiving on child resources. Given the complexity of folder operations, more context is warranted.

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 only 33% (only folder_id has an in-schema description). The description adds the semantic meaning of the two remaining params — name means rename target, archived means archive state — which partially compensates. However, it doesn't clarify whether archived=true archives and archived=false un-archives (or is a no-op), which is a meaningful semantic ambiguity.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource ('Rename or archive a folder'), which clearly maps to the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like create_folder, delete_folder, update_space, or update_list, though the verb+resource clarity is sufficient to infer the difference.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Given the many folder/space/list update tools, it doesn't clarify when renaming or archiving a folder is appropriate, whether archiving is reversible, or what happens to contained lists/tasks when archived. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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