Core Content Services MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation operation ('Updates'), specifies success/failure outcomes with return types (Folder object or ToolError), and mentions the need for prerequisite tools. However, it doesn't cover permission requirements, rate limits, or whether changes are reversible.

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 front-loaded with critical prerequisites, but has some redundancy (repeating 'Description:' header). The parameter explanations are thorough but could be more streamlined. Overall, most content earns its place, but structure could be cleaner.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description provides strong prerequisites, parameter explanations, and success/failure outcomes. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like permissions 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well. It explains all 3 parameters: identifier (can be GUID or path), class_identifier (optional, allows changing folder's class), and folder_properties (includes name, etc.). It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though doesn't fully detail the FolderPropertiesInput structure.

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 'Updates an existing folder in the content repository with specified properties' - a specific verb (updates) and resource (folder). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_folder' by specifying 'existing folder', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_document_properties'.

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 provides explicit prerequisites with a required sequence: '1. determine_class tool to get the class_identifier. 2. get_class_property_descriptions to get a list of valid properties'. This gives clear when-to-use guidance including necessary preparatory steps, though it doesn't mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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