update_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the high-level action and fails to disclose whether the update is partial (only provided fields are changed), the permissions required, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a noticeable gap.

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, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. It is appropriately sized with no unnecessary detail, though it is minimal.

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 an update tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a three-parameter schema, the description lacks important context such as partial update semantics, required permissions, or what happens to unspecified fields. This incomplete context leaves the agent uncertain about usage and expected behavior.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters (id, name, color). The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating that name and color are updatable, so it does not significantly enhance understanding 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 clearly states the action (update), the resource (folder), and the specific fields affected (name or color). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_folder and delete_folder, and it is 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?

The description implies usage when you need to modify a folder's name or color, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. There is no discussion of preconditions or comparison to other update tools.

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