Update Folder

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

Discloses PUT semantics—only supplied fields are sent and those fields overwrite existing values—which goes beyond the annotations. Also adds context about company_id affecting visibility and parent_folder_id for nesting. The description aligns with annotations (no contradiction).

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 about five sentences, front-loaded with the purpose ('Update an existing folder'), then context, a usage warning, and a structured operation class/impact summary. Every sentence adds value with no redundant content.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers behavior, usage, and safety considerations. It does not mention return values, which is a minor gap, but the update semantics and pitfalls are well conveyed.

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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds crucial behavioral meaning: the PUT partial-update behavior and the distinction between company-specific and global folders, which enhances understanding of parameters like company_id and parent_folder_id.

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 'Update an existing folder' with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the folder concept and how company_id and parent_folder_id affect structure, which distinguishes this update tool from sibling create/get/archive tools.

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?

Provides actionable guidance: read the record first with hudu_get_folder if intending to append rather than overwrite, and warns to confirm company_id moves due to visibility implications. It does not exhaustively contrast with all sibling tools but gives clear situational advice.

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