Edit a dialog folder

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

The description says 'Replace the rules' but does not clarify whether unspecified fields are reset to defaults or whether it's a partial update. It lacks information about permissions, error behavior if the folder doesn't exist, or side effects. Annotations openWorldHint and idempotentHint provide some context but do not cover these aspects.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action. However, the second sentence about `id` being required is redundant with the schema and could be omitted without loss.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and mutation semantics, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what 'rules' means, how the boolean/array parameters map to folder filtering behavior, or what happens on execution. Annotations partially compensate but are insufficient for a tool of this 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 0%. The description only mentions `id` is required, which is already in the schema's required array, adding no new meaning. The other 12 parameters (e.g., excludeRead, includeBots, pinnedPeers) are not described, leaving the agent to infer their semantics from names alone.

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 states a specific action: 'Replace the rules of an existing folder,' identifying both the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_folder and delete_folder by emphasizing 'existing,' but 'rules' is somewhat ambiguous without schema context.

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?

Usage is implied through the phrase 'existing folder' and the requirement of `id`, suggesting this is for editing an already-created folder. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use create_folder for new folders, reorder_folders for ordering) are provided.

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