update_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by specifying that at least one of display_name or parent_folder_id is required, that Graph rejects mutations of well-known folders, that None means unchanged, and that the result is a trimmed updated folder. This goes meaningfully beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides needed operational information—required fields, constraints, parameter semantics, and return value—with no filler.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required parameters, constraints, optional parameters, and return value. The only minor gap is not explaining what 'trimmed' means or the default mailbox behavior when mailbox is null, but the essential information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. Every parameter is explained with operational meaning: folder_id is a Graph id, parent_folder_id accepts well-known names, mailbox targets shared mailboxes, and include_raw returns the raw Graph payload. This is exactly the kind of semantic detail the schema lacks.

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 first line states a specific action ('Rename and/or reparent') on a specific resource ('mail folder'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_folder, delete_folder, and update_message. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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 when to use it by defining the operation, and it usefully warns that well-known folders cannot be renamed or moved. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when a different folder/message tool should be preferred, leaving usage selection mostly to inference.

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