clickup_update_folder

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses partial-update semantics ("Only specified fields updated") and a non-obvious side effect ("Changes apply to all lists in folder"). It stops short of stating permission requirements, reversibility, or what the response contains.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the precondition, then behavior, then the sibling pointer. Nothing is repeated and every sentence carries usable information.

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?

No annotations and no output schema means the description must cover purpose, preconditions, and side effects, and it does all three. Missing only peripheral context such as permission requirements or what an update returns, which is a modest gap 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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including workspace_id as digits-only and conditional. The description adds one real constraint the schema omits — that at least one update field must be supplied — but adds no format or usage detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a ClickUp folder") and immediately scopes it with the required inputs. It also names clickup_get_folder as the route for resolving a folder name, which separates it from the read/lookup siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition (folder_id plus at least one of name/override_statuses) and an explicit fallback path for agents that only have a folder name. It does not distinguish this from clickup_update_list or clickup_create_folder, so there is no explicit when-not guidance, but the invocation conditions are clear.

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