update_component_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'update' implies a mutation but fails to describe what happens during the update (e.g., whether it overwrites existing data, requires permissions, or has side effects). It does not mention error conditions, rate limits, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral insight.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity. Every word earns its place, but the description is arguably too sparse for effective tool selection.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with two parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does beyond the basic verb, provide parameter details, describe behavioral traits, or guide usage. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter (component_folder_id, name) is documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it does not explain what a component_folder_id is, where to find it, or what the name parameter represents. With two undocumented parameters and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate.

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 a component folder' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'component folder' but provides no additional context about what aspects are updated or how this differs from similar tools like 'update_asset_folder' or 'update_component'. The purpose is stated but lacks specificity.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a component_folder_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_component_folder' or 'delete_component_folder'. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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