folders_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the update action but does not state whether permissions are required, whether the operation is irreversible, what happens to the previous name, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is a significant lack of transparency.

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 sentence that is clear and free of redundancy. It conveys the essential purpose without any fluff or unnecessary detail, making it appropriately concise.

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?

This is a simple update operation with full schema coverage for its two parameters. The description, while terse, adequately explains the core function for an agent to select and invoke the tool. However, the lack of any behavioral details (e.g., error handling, return value) prevents a perfect score.

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% with both parameters clearly described ('The new name of the folder' and 'The ID of the folder to update'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Update'), the resource ('existing ClickUp folder'), and the specific attribute ('name'), distinguishing it from siblings like folders_create and folders_delete. It uses a specific verb+resource construction that leaves no ambiguity.

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 implies usage for renaming a folder but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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