nexterm_update_folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact not in the annotations — that this operation can relocate a folder (move), not just rename it. It does not clarify partial-update semantics or what happens when nullable fields are omitted, which is the main residual gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the operation and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is closer to under-specification than true economy.

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 a 4-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It leaves the nullable/partial-update contract, organization scoping, and the effect of a move (e.g. sibling name collisions) entirely undocumented.

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 description coverage is 0% and no parameter names or meanings appear in the description; parameter intent (folder_id, name, parent_id, organization_id) must be reverse-engineered from property names. The word 'move' implies parent_id behavior, but the nullable fields create real ambiguity about whether null means 'leave unchanged' or 'clear the value', and organization_id is never addressed.

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?

States a specific verb pair (update/move) and resource (Nexterm folder), which is better than a bare restatement of the name. However, it offers no differentiation from the many adjacent siblings (nexterm_create_folder, nexterm_delete_folder, nexterm_list_folders), so an agent must infer boundaries from the name alone.

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 gives no conditions for when to use this tool rather than delete_folder or create_folder, and no prerequisites or constraints. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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