update_folder

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

Annotations already cover idempotence (idempotentHint=true), non-read-only behavior, and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds one useful behavior: 'Set parentId to null to move to root level.' It does not enrich that this is an update operation that may overwrite existing values or discuss permissions/rate limits, but given the annotations the disclosure is adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the verb and resource ('Update a folder name and/or move it to a different parent'), then clarifies the special root-level case. Both sentences earn their place, with no filler or repetition.

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 mutation operation, high schema coverage, and complete annotations, the information needed to call the tool correctly is largely present. The description covers the non-trivial parentId=null case. It omits a return value or result description, but no output schema exists, and an update tool does not inherently need one for a call to succeed.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds one operational nuance for parentId (set to null to move to root), but this is already present in the schema's parameter description. No extra meaning is added beyond what structured field already provides.

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 states a specific action: 'Update a folder name and/or move it to a different parent.' This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like create_folder, get_folder, and delete_folder. The inclusion of the 'move to root' detail makes the resource and scope unmistakable.

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 communicates the primary use cases (renaming and moving a folder) and adds a specific behavioral note about parentId null. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, nor does it name alternatives like creating or deleting a folder. The reader must infer the social context from sibling names alone.

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