update-contact-folder

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that the default 'Contacts' folder may not be renameable, which is a notable constraint. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description complements this with a specific limitation.

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: a short sentence stating the purpose, followed by a compact tip with key details. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 has 5 parameters (2 required) and nested body structure, the description covers the essential aspects: the purpose, the main writable fields, and a constraint. It lacks details about the confirm gate or response options, but those are common and inferred from schema. The absence of output schema is acceptable as description does not need to detail return values.

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 80% schema coverage, the description adds value by explicitly stating that displayName and parentFolderId are the writable fields in the body, clarifying what the agent should set. It does not mention the other parameters (confirm, includeHeaders, etc.), but those are standard across tools and do not require additional explanation.

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 identifies the verb 'Update' and the resource 'contactfolder object', distinguishing it from siblings like create-contact-folder and delete-contact-folder. It specifies that it updates properties of an existing contact folder.

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 clear context: it updates a contact folder, highlights the two writable fields (displayName and parentFolderId), and notes that the default folder may not be renameable. It also suggests getting the folder id via list-contact-folders. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create or delete tools, but the purpose is clear.

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