update_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates mutation ('Updates') but lacks details on permissions, error conditions, side effects, or irreversibility. The brief description does not compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 structured with bold prerequisites first, then the core purpose. It is front-loaded but slightly verbose due to the repeated 'Description:', though still efficient overall.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose and prerequisites, but lacks details on validation, partial updates, or constraints. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the input schema already fully documents each parameter including descriptions for identifier, class_identifier, and folder_properties. The description adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so 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 explicitly states 'Updates an existing folder in the content repository with specified properties,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_folder or delete_folder by focusing on modification.

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 explicit prerequisites in order, stating that determine_class and get_class_property_descriptions must be called first. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for other scenarios.

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