Update folder

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds only that name or status can be changed, without explaining side effects of dropping a folder or irreversibility. That is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but it adds little beyond what structured metadata already communicates.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It directly states the action, target, and updatable fields, making it appropriately concise for a simple update operation.

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 low-complexity update tool, the combo of a 100%-covered schema, an output schema, and annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) covers the essential invocation knowledge. The required name_or_id is documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat it.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for name, status, and name_or_id and an enum for status. The description does not add meaning beyond those schema fieldshola; it merely restates the updatable attributes. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 and specifically states a verb ('Update'), a resource ('an OmniFocus folder'), and the mutable attributes ('name or status'). It differentiates this tool from sibling folder tools like create_folder, delete_folder, get_folder, and list_folders without ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the folder must already exist), and no exclusions. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool's name and minimal description.

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