update_campaign_folder

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds authentication method, concurrency limit, and dry-run support, which are valuable beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then key constraints, then parameter details, then return info. No redundant sentences; every part adds value.

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?

With an existing output schema, the description still details return fields. It covers prerequisites, parameters, and behavioral notes. Highly complete for a simple rename tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: folder_id with source hint, name purpose, and account with configuration and default behavior. This compensates thoroughly.

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 'Rename an existing campaign folder', specifying the verb and resource. It further differentiates by noting that campaigns assigned are unaffected, distinguishing it from delete or create folder siblings.

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 explains when to use (rename folder) and provides a prerequisite tool (list_campaign_folders). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is well-defined.

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