Update Folder Icon

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds the 'Experimental' stability warning and explicitly states that null removes the icon, which is a reversible clearing behavior. It also scopes the effect to the 'sidebar icon,' which is contextual beyond annotations, though no side effects or auth requirements are 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?

The description is three short sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, parameter options, and an experimental caveat. It is front-loaded and wastes no words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, one with polymorphic types), the output schema, and annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the core behavior and parameter forms. The main gap is the undocumented workspaceId and lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but these are minor given the structured data provided.

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 67% (folderId and icon have descriptions, workspaceId does not). The description's 'Pass an emoji string, a full icon object, or null to remove it' summarizes the icon parameter but is largely redundant with the schema's detailed icon description. It provides no additional meaning for folderId or workspaceId, so it adds limited value beyond the schema.

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 'Set or clear the sidebar icon on an organize folder,' specifying the action (set/clear) and resource (sidebar icon on organize folder). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_doc_icon by explicitly scoping to 'organize folder' and 'sidebar icon.'

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 implies usage for folder icon updates but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. The scope is clear, but there is no direct comparison to get_folder_icon or update_doc_icon, and the 'Experimental' tag only hints at caution without clear usage guidance.

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