uselink_update_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Only provided fields change' indicates a partial update semantic, which is valuable and goes beyond the schema. However, it omits other context like permissions, error handling, or return behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a meaningful nuance about partial updates. There is no redundant information or wasted words.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description is minimal. It lacks details about return values, prerequisites, or error scenarios, and there is no output schema to fill those gaps. The partial-update behavior adds some completeness, making it minimally viable, but more context would be expected for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameter names (name, slug, color) but does not explain their meaning, format, or constraints. For example, 'slug' is ambiguous without clarification of URL slug conventions, and 'color' format is unspecified. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'folder', and lists the specific fields (name, slug, color) that can be modified. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like uselink_update_document or uselink_update_project, which target different resources.

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 when to use the tool (when updating folder metadata) and clarifies that only provided fields are changed, giving a usage hint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it (e.g., to move a folder use uselink_move_folder).

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