tc_folders

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It does a good job of explaining each action's HTTP method and required IDs, including async deletion and job status. However, it omits details like error responses, side effects (e.g., irreversible deletes), authentication requirements, and rate limits. For a tool with many mutating actions, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 lengthy due to the many actions, but it is well-structured with a clear header, bullet points for each action, and front-loaded with the overall purpose. Each action entry is minimal and informative. While it could be slightly more concise by grouping similar actions (e.g., versions and versions_v21), the structure is effective for the complexity.

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's complexity (10 parameters, 18 actions) and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers all actions, required IDs, and usage of parameters. However, it lacks details on pagination for paged actions (though it mentions paged v2.1 API), error handling, and expected output formats. For a tool with this scope, it is largely adequate but could be enhanced.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains how path placeholders map to parameters (e.g., 'id=folderId'), clarifies that 'items' action uses the project rootId for root, and describes the role of 'body' and 'query' parameters. This context helps the agent correctly invoke each action.

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 tool's purpose: 'Trimble Connect Folders: browse, create, rename, delete, versions, permissions.' It then exhaustively lists each action with HTTP method and path, leaving no ambiguity about what operations are supported. This distinguishes it from siblings like tc_get_folder_contents which is specifically for folder contents, as this tool covers a broader set of folder operations.

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 explicit instructions on how to use the tool: select the action via the 'action' parameter and fill path placeholders from matching input parameters. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., tc_get_folder_contents, tc_files_app), nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage is clear for each action but lacks comparative context.

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