update_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a write operation, but the description does not mention whether this is destructive, requires special permissions, or if it affects folder contents. The lack of detail is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it could be expanded slightly to include more behavioral context without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the simple input schema (2 required params) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details about return values, atomicity, or name uniqueness constraints. For a straightforward rename operation, it is sufficient but not fully informative.

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 100%, and both parameter descriptions ('Folder ID', 'New folder name') are clear. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 'Rename or update a Folder' clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (Folder). It distinguishes from siblings like create_folder and delete_folder. However, it could be more precise by specifying that updating is limited to renaming, as the schema only includes a name parameter.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_space or update_list. The description does not provide context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the resource type alone.

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