ilinks_update_folder

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not meet it: it never says the operation mutates state destructively, whether the update is partial or requires resubmitting the full folder, what permissions are needed, or that the password field has clear-vs-noop ambiguity (only hinted at in the schema, not the description). Nothing beyond the bare 'modify' semantics is disclosed.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action and affected fields front-loaded, and no filler. It is slightly under-specified rather than over-long, so conciseness itself is a strength here.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this one-line description leaves critical gaps: the mandatory-name requirement versus the 'name, icon, description, or password' framing, the folder type enum, error behavior, and whether changes are reversible are all unaddressed.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline applies. The description restates four of the fields but adds no semantics the schema lacks and never mentions content_type or the bookmark/note enum choice.

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-plus-resource ('修改现有文件夹' — modify an existing folder) and enumerates the mutable fields (name, icon, description, password), which differentiates it from ilinks_update_bookmark by target resource. However it omits the content_type field that the schema exposes, so the stated scope is narrower than what the tool can actually do.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over siblings, no preconditions (folder must exist, must be owned/authorized), and no note that both id and name are mandatory — a real hazard given the description frames name as one of several optional things to change. The agent must infer everything about usage context from the tool name.

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