update_asset_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to child assets when moving folders, whether changes are reversible, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 maximally concise with a single sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While under-specified, it's efficiently structured with zero redundancy.

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?

For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'updating' entails, what parameters control, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. The description fails to provide the contextual information necessary for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 0%, meaning all three parameters (asset_folder_id, name, parent_id) are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about parameter meanings, formats, or constraints. It doesn't explain that asset_folder_id identifies the target folder, name updates its display name, or parent_id changes its location in the hierarchy. The description fails to compensate for the complete schema coverage gap.

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 'Update an asset folder' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what aspects can be updated (name, parent location) or how this differs from other update tools like 'update_asset' or 'update_component'. While it identifies the resource (asset folder), it lacks the verb specificity needed for clear differentiation.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing asset folder ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_asset_folder', 'delete_asset_folder', or 'bulk_move_assets'. The description offers zero contextual direction for tool selection.

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