Update a collection folder

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

Annotations already state the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail: 'The previous state is snapshotted before the write; revert with nuvio_undo.' This informs the agent of reversibility and the undo mechanism, going beyond the annotation metadata.

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 only two sentences: the first states the primary action and scope, the second introduces the snapshot/undo behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Excellent for quickly scanning.

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 description lacks important context for correct invocation: it does not mention that changes is a partial object (only provided fields are updated), nor that collection_id and folder_id are required to locate the target folder. With no output schema, it also leaves the return behavior unspecified. These gaps could lead an agent to pass incorrect or incomplete data.

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. It does list the main editable fields (title, cover, tile shape, catalog sources) but does not mention hideTitle, uses 'cover' ambiguously for coverEmoji/coverImageUrl, and does not explain the shape of the changes object or partial update semantics. It adds some meaning but leaves gaps.

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 states a specific verb ('Edit') with the resource ('a folder') and enumerates the editable attributes (title, cover, tile shape, catalog sources). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like nuvio_add_collection_folder and nuvio_remove_collection_folder, leaving no ambiguity about what it operates on.

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 editing an existing folder, but does not explicitly tell when to use it versus siblings (e.g., add/remove/reorder) or any prerequisites like collection_id/folder_id. No alternatives are named, so the guidance is mostly implicit.

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