Update solution folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say that omitted fields are left unchanged, what permissions are required, or what the returned payload represents (openWorldHint suggests external state changes).

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?

One short sentence with no waste and the intent is front-loaded, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient.

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 seven-parameter mutation with 29% schema coverage and no parameter explanations, the description leaves an agent unable to tell which fields to supply or what the update semantics are. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but the input side remains substantially uncovered.

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 only 29% across seven parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not — it names no parameters at all. Nontrivial fields like visibility (integer 1-7, whose semantics are deferred to create_solution_folder), group_ids, department_ids and requester_group_ids are completely unexplained in the description.

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 and resource ('Update a knowledge-base folder'), which separates it from sibling mutations like update_solution_category and update_solution_article. However, it uses 'knowledge-base folder' while the tool name and schema use 'solution folder', leaving a small terminology gap for an agent scanning sibling names.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of create_solution_folder, delete_solution_folder, or get_solution_folder, and no statement that updates are partial/optional-field based even though six of seven parameters are optional.

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