Update a folder's description in EasyEDA Pro by providing team and folder IDs along with the new text. Changes appear after a short delay.
dmt_Folder.modifyFolderDescription(teamUuid: string, folderUuid: string, description?: string) -> Promise 修改文件夹描述 remarks: 修改文件夹描述需要与工作区系统进行交互，修改操作存在延迟，需要短暂等待后才会呈现效果 returns: 是否修改成功
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions that the operation is asynchronous and has a delay, which is useful, but it fails to disclose potential side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a mutation tool, and the description doesn't warn about prerequisites or errors accordingly.
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 relatively concise, with a clear signature, a brief usage note, and a returns line. It front-loads the signature and the remark about the delay, but it could be more efficient by discarding the redundant 'remarks' label. Overall, it's compact and well-structured.
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 (a single mutation with a few parameters) and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description covers the basic mechanics but omits details like what constitutes success (e.g., does it throw on failure?) and how to retrieve the updated description. It's adequate but not thorough.
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 schema has a high coverage (100%) of the parameters via the description of the args array, but the schema itself does not explicitly describe each argument. The description's signature line lists teamUuid, folderUuid, and description, but does not explain their roles or formats beyond what the names imply. Since coverage is high, a baseline 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 it modifies folder descriptions, including the required team and folder UUIDs and the optional new description. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'modify_folder_name' explicitly, but the resource and field are specific enough.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like modify_folder_name. It simply says it modifies the description, leaving the agent to infer that this is for description updates only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.