update_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only signals that this is a mutation operation; it does not mention whether updates are partial, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether the update is idempotent, or what happens after a successful update.

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 brief and has no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. It omits critical behavioral and contextual details that an agent needs, so the brevity does not earn credit as effective structure.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, this description is incomplete. It would be sufficient only if all important behavior were obvious from the schema, but the schema does not explain update semantics or side effects.

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 the parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter relationships or behaviors, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing folder' essentially restates the tool name with no additional detail. It identifies the verb and resource but does not indicate what fields can be updated, how updates behave, or how this tool differs from create_folder or delete_folder.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use update_folder instead of create_folder, delete_folder, or other update tools among the siblings, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and schema alone.

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