Update Folder Icon

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the tool is experimental, and passing null is a valid clearing operation rather than an error. It doesn't cover permissions or error behavior on unknown icon names (the schema does that).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the accepted payload shapes, ending with a one-word experimental caveat. Nothing is padded.

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 annotations, a rich icon schema, and an output schema present, the description covers what the agent needs to call it correctly. The only gaps are the undocumented workspaceId and the absence of any failure-mode note for invalid icon names, which the schema partially covers.

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 coverage is 67% and the icon parameter is already documented in exceptional detail in the schema (emoji shorthand, object forms, null, @blocksuite/icons naming rules). The description only restates those accepted shapes, and workspaceId remains unexplained in both places.

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?

States a specific verb pair (set/clear) and resource (sidebar icon on an organize folder), which distinguishes it from the read-only get_folder_icon and from update_doc_icon by resource scope. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 tells the agent what payload shapes are accepted and that null removes the icon, which is invocation guidance. It gives no when-to-use / when-not guidance relative to get_folder_icon or update_doc_icon, and 'Experimental' is a caution flag rather than a usage rule.

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