update_folder

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (rename) but omits details such as whether the operation is reversible, requires special permissions, or affects folder contents. The presence of an output schema is noted but the description does not summarize or enhance understanding of the behavior.

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 very concise (three words) but at the expense of completeness. While it is front-loaded with the core action, it could include a brief structure like 'Renames a folder. Provide folder_id and new name.' This would maintain conciseness while adding value.

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 the tool is a mutation operation with an output schema (likely returning the updated folder), the description underperforms. Sibling tools include many update and patch operations, and the description does not help distinguish 'update_folder' from similar tools like 'patch_folder' or 'update_contact'. More context on what 'update' entails (only rename) is needed.

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 should compensate. However, it adds no meaning beyond the parameter names: 'folder_id' and 'name'. Constraints like uniqueness, format, or length are absent, leaving the agent to infer from names only.

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 'Rename a folder' clearly states the specific action (rename) and resource (folder), distinguishing it from the generic 'update' implied by the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'patch_folder' which may also rename folders, limiting distinctiveness.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'patch_folder' or 'create_folder'. There is no mention of preconditions (e.g., folder existence) or postconditions, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

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