update_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states that the tool updates a folder and returns a Folder object on success or a ToolError on failure, but it does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or constraints on property updates. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded prerequisites section, clear parameter documentation, and return behavior. It is not overly verbose; each sentence serves a purpose.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's complexity, the description covers prerequisites, parameter semantics, and success/failure behavior. It lacks some behavioral details (e.g., what happens on invalid identifier) but is largely complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. The description adds value by clarifying that 'identifier' can be an ID or path, and that 'class_identifier' allows changing the folder's class. However, details for 'folder_properties' are vague ('including name, etc'), and the schema already provides sub-property descriptions. The description partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 the verb ('Updates') and resource ('existing folder in the content repository with specified properties'), distinguishing it from siblings like '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?

The description starts with an explicit, ordered list of prerequisites (calling 'determine_class' and 'get_class_property_descriptions' first), providing strong guidance on when to use. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear.

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