Edit a Qmetry test plan folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'edit', implying mutation, but does not specify required permissions, idempotency, side effects, or error behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full impact.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of completeness. While not verbose, it omits important details that could be included without significant length.

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 should explain what is returned (e.g., the updated folder object) and any post-edit behavior. It also fails to differentiate from many sibling edit tools. The description is too sparse 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates 'for a given project'. The schema descriptions for each parameter are already clear.

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?

Title and description clearly state the tool edits a Qmetry test plan folder. The verb 'edit' and resource 'test-plan-folder' are specific, but the description does not differentiate from siblings like edit-qmetry-test-case-folder or edit-qmetry-test-cycle-folder beyond the name itself.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, move, archive). The description only states what it does, with no context about prerequisites, when editing is appropriate, or scenarios where other tools should be preferred.

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