update_media_folder

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the mutating actions (rename and/or re-parent) and adds the consent requirement, but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or impact on descendant folders. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The action is front-loaded and the consent condition is a single imperative sentence. Every word contributes.

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 simple update tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description covers the operation and the key prerequisite. It lacks explicit side-effect disclosure and alternatives, but the schema covers parameters and the overall complexity is low, so nothing critical is missing.

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 the input schema fully documents id, name, and parentId, including the null-to-move-to-top-level behavior. The description's mention of renaming and re-parenting maps to these params but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Rename a media folder and/or move it under a different parent folder,' which clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_media (media items vs folders) and create/delete_media_folder. The 'and/or' phrasing accurately captures that both actions may occur in one call.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: only call after the user has agreed to the change, which is an explicit when-to-use constraint. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of the full 'when not to use' guidance that would earn a 5.

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