m365_contacts_folder_update

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds scope clarification (folder only, not contacts or categories) and states the return ('updated folder with success'), but never explains what makes this destructive or what happens to child folders during a move — a notable gap given destructiveHint=true.

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 action and its scope exclusions, then the parameter recipe, then ID source, then return. No filler and nothing repeated unnecessarily.

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 output schema exists, yet the description says it returns the updated folder with success, and all four parameters are covered. The only missing piece is a consequence note for moves (child folders, contacts inside) to justify the destructive hint, which keeps it from a 5.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by stating that displayName and moveToParentFolderId may be supplied together or alone and by framing parentFolderId as the 'current' parent versus the destination. That combination rule is real added meaning not spelled out in the schema.

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?

Specific verb pair (rename/move) plus resource (contact folder), and it explicitly scopes out contact/category mutation, which separates it from siblings like m365_contacts_update and m365_contacts_folder_create. An agent can identify the tool from the first clause alone.

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?

States the required combination ('supply displayName, moveToParentFolderId, or both'), explains the parentFolderId vs moveToParentFolderId distinction, and names m365_contacts_folders_list as the source of valid IDs. This is explicit when-to-use and prerequisite guidance with a named alternative.

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