update_folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond restating the field being changed: it does not note that the previous name is overwritten, whether confirmation is required, or what happens on an invalid folder_id. For a mutation flagged destructive, this is thin.

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 with zero filler, which is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness flaw.

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 tool is simple (2 required params, no output schema, no nesting) and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description is minimally adequate. Still, an agent has no information on failure modes, permission needs, or whether the rename is reversible.

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%, so the schema already documents both folder_id and name ('New folder name'). The description only echoes 'name' and ignores folder_id entirely, adding no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema baseline.

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+resource ('Update a folder's name') that clearly distinguishes it from the many template/render/upload update siblings. However, it offers no explicit sibling differentiation beyond the resource name, so it stays at a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. create_folder or delete_folder). The agent gets the what but not the when.

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