set_group_fold_state

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

Annotations only indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, but the description fails to disclose the two-phase planning/apply workflow. The schema hints at dryRun, planHash, and confirmationToken, but the description does not explain that applying requires a prior dry run and a confirmation token, nor does it mention the need for expectedStateVersion to prevent stale writes. This is critical behavioral information that the description should convey.

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 states the core purpose without filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and object, and no extraneous information is included.

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 tool with 6 parameters and a non-trivial two-phase workflow, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the planning/apply flow, what the tool returns (e.g., a plan hash and confirmation token), or why expectedStateVersion is required. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the response structure and the relationship between the dry run and the actual apply, but it does not.

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 all parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions (e.g., dryRun explains the plan/apply behavior, confirmationToken is 'short-lived, single-use'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (plan or apply), the resource (folded state of a group track), and the scope (one exact existing group track). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on the fold state specifically, and the wording 'one exact' indicates it targets a single track, not a bulk operation.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many set_* and plan_* tools, but the description does not mention any alternative, exclusion conditions, or context that would help an agent choose this over a similar tool like set_track_freeze_state or recall_track_state_snapshot.

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