put_folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful partial-update semantics, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the identifier and the partial-update note. The first two sentences are somewhat redundant ('Update a folder.' vs 'Update a test case folder using its unique identifier'), but there is no filler.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and partial-update behavior adequately. But the parent-folder claim not backed by the schema and the absence of any auth/reversibility context leave meaningful gaps.

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% (generic 'A resource string' text), so the description must compensate. It names the modifiable fields (name, description) which helps, but also claims a 'parent folder relationship' that does not appear anywhere in the schema — an overpromise that can mislead the agent about available parameters.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Update a test case folder') and scopes it to a unique identifier, which separates it from post_folder, get_folder, and delete_folder. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the resource specificity makes the target unambiguous.

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?

It notes that partial updates are supported so only changed fields need to be sent, which implies usage context. However, it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never points to alternatives like post_folder (create) or a move operation for restructuring.

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