update_folder_name

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint: false) but non-destructive (destructiveHint: false) operation. The description adds that it updates a folder name, which aligns with annotations and provides basic context. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., invalid ID). With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal but not rich behavioral context.

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 is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given a mutation tool with annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) but no output schema and partial parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage, error handling, or return values. For a simple update operation, it's functional but leaves gaps in guidance and semantics.

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 50% (only 'name' has a description). The description mentions updating 'by its ID', which hints at the 'id' parameter's purpose but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond the schema. It doesn't explain parameter constraints (e.g., ID format, name length) or interactions. With partial schema coverage, the description compensates slightly but not fully.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('folder name'), specifying it's done 'by its ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_folder' (creation) and 'delete_folder' (deletion), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'move_folder' (which might involve name changes). The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing folder ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'move_folder' (which might rename during relocation). Usage is implied from the name and description alone, with no explicit context.

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