Update a folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top of that: it does not mention that a mutation requires confirm=true, what happens to unspecified fields, or that changes are non-idempotent, which is exactly the extra context this bar rewards.

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 no filler, which is structurally clean. It is under-specified rather than bloated, and under-specification is penalized elsewhere.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with a nested payload, a confirm flag, and two mutually exclusive body channels (payload vs payload_file), yet the description never acknowledges any of that. With no output schema and a complex argument surface, one generic sentence is not enough to call the tool correctly with confidence.

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 eight parameters (including the nested payload, payload_file, and the confirm flag) are already documented in structured form. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a verb and resource ("Update a folder") and scopes it to the workspace, but it does little more than restate the tool title. It never distinguishes this from siblings like create_folder, delete_folder, or update_link, nor does it say what aspect of the folder is updatable, leaving the agent to open the schema to find out.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_folder or delete_folder. The agent must infer everything about applicability from the tool name alone.

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