Update a folder

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

The description merely lists the operations without disclosing behavioral details such as whether it performs a partial update (only changing specified fields), if there are constraints on duplicate names, or any side effects. Annotations already indicate it's not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no extra context beyond this.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys all three operations without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple update tool, covering the main operations. However, it lacks important contextual details such as the partial-update behavior (whether omitted fields remain unchanged) and any constraints, which are especially relevant for update tools. The presence of annotations and the simple schema reduce the burden, but the description could still be more complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by mapping 'rename' to name, 'change emoji' to emoji, and 'pin/unpin' to isPinned, providing meaningful semantics. The id parameter is implied as the identifier. However, it doesn't clarify whether at least one optional field must be provided, which is a minor 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 clearly states specific actions on a folder: renaming, changing emoji, and pinning/unpinning. This goes beyond the generic title and distinguishes it from other update tools for different resources like update_profile or update_proxy.

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 implies this tool is for modifying folder metadata, and the resource is clear from the name. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like move_profiles_to_folder or reorder_folders, nor does it state prerequisites such as the folder needing to exist.

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