update-folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses resolution by id or name+type, reparenting behavior, and GM-only restriction. However, it does not detail error handling or confirmation of updates.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The first sentence introduces the action and capabilities, the second provides resolution and usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose.

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 no output schema, the description covers the core functionality (update, rename, recolor, reparent), resolution method, and restrictive audience (GM-only). Missing specifics on success/failure responses but sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining identifier resolution ('exact id or exact name+type') and the special case for moving to root (passing an empty string). It also provides a use-case hint for renaming.

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 'sidebar Folder', listing specific actions (rename, recolor, reparent). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create-folder' and 'delete-folder' by its purpose.

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 explicitly advises using this tool to rename a folder without the 'move-documents + delete-folder dance', providing an alternative. It also notes 'GM-only', setting clear usage constraints.

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