coda_update_folder

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by stating 'Returns the updated folder metadata' and confirming idempotency (matches annotation). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context about output, though it omits details on handling null name or partial updates.

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 short (4 sentences) but has slight redundancy between the first two sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient. Minor redundancy prevents a higher score.

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 straightforward rename operation, the description covers purpose, return value, and idempotency. With a full input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds only the context that the update is a rename, which is minimally additive. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the burden.

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 explicitly states 'Update a folder's name' and 'Renames the specified folder', providing a clear verb-resource pairing with specificity to folder renaming. It distinguishes from sibling folder tools (create, delete, get) by focusing solely on name updates.

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 usage for renaming a folder but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., use for renaming, not for other folder properties). No exclusions or contextual guidance for sibling tools is provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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