Update Folder

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the server replaces the folder config, aligning with destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like permissions or error handling. The context is adequate given the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds a critical constraint. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers the key constraint (name required) and the replacement behavior. However, it lacks usage guidance relative to sibling tools, which is a minor gap.

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%. The description adds 'name must always be supplied (the server replaces the folder config)', which provides behavioral context beyond the schema's simple field descriptions. This is a meaningful addition, though the 'description' parameter is not clarified further.

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 name and title clearly indicate the tool updates a folder. The description specifies the verb 'Update' and resource 'folder', and the additional detail about requiring 'name' distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_folder or clone_folder.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_folder or clone_folder. The description only states a requirement (name must always be supplied) but does not provide context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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