update-mail-folder

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

The description states 'Update', which is consistent with the destructiveHint=true annotation, but it does not add any additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. The tool modifies state, but no details on what is specifically affected (e.g., irreversible changes, authorization requirements) are disclosed. The description adds minimal value over 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 concise, consisting of one clear sentence and a tip. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary details.

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?

Despite a complex input schema with nested objects and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the response, the implications of the update, or cover all aspects of usage. The tool is destructive but the description lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand the operation's scope.

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?

The schema has high description coverage (75%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only mentioning displayName in the tip. It does not explain the body parameter structure, includeHeaders, or excludeResponse. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema coverage.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'mailfolder object', making the general purpose clear. However, it focuses on renaming via displayName in the tip, which might oversimplify the tool's capability to update multiple properties. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like update-mail-message, but the resource is different.

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 a tip on when to use the tool for renaming by updating displayName, and suggests using list-mail-folders to get the folder ID. However, it does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is implied but not fully clarified.

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