jfrog_set_folder_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool sets properties with optional recursion, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether it overwrites existing properties, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Set properties on a folder in Artifactory') and appends the optional feature. There is no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 mutation nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response details. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (folderPath, properties, recursive). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional recursive application,' which aligns with the schema's recursive parameter. No additional syntax, format, or constraints are provided, 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 clearly states the action ('Set properties') and target ('on a folder in Artifactory'), with the optional recursive feature mentioned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'jfrog_create_local_repository' or 'jfrog_get_package_info' by focusing on property management rather than creation or retrieval operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential property-related siblings that might exist in other contexts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing specific permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for files instead of folders), or suggest other tools for related tasks like getting properties. The optional recursive feature is noted but without context on its implications.

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