bookshelf_update_rootfolder

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'WRITE: this modifies your Bookshelf instance,' which reinforces the write nature but does not disclose specific behavioral traits like permissions required, what happens to existing settings, or whether changes are reversible. This is minimal extra context, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 extremely concise, with only two short sentences: 'Update rootfolder.' and 'WRITE: this modifies your Bookshelf instance.' No filler or unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 an update operation with a free-form body, the description is too sparse. It does not mention what fields can be updated, whether it is a partial update, what the response looks like, or any preconditions. Even though an output schema exists, the agent would lack sufficient context to construct a correct update request.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain the purpose of 'id' and 'body' fields, but it does not. The schema shows an 'id' string and a 'body' object with additionalProperties true, yet the description provides no hint that id likely identifies the rootfolder to update or what body contents are expected.

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 the resource 'rootfolder', which is distinct from sibling tools like create_rootfolder, delete_rootfolder, get_rootfolder, and list_rootfolder. It could be more specific about what 'rootfolder' means in this context, but the verb and resource are unambiguous.

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, no prerequisites, and no context about typical scenarios. The only extra note is a generic WRITE warning, which does not help the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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