update_folder

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

Beyond annotations, the description explains meaningful behavioral consequences: moving carries all nested children and changes their paths, it never changes type, and it never creates or destroys anything. It also clarifies that re-parenting to root changes depth/path. This is exactly the context an agent needs to understand what happens to the rest of the tree.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core action, parentId behavior, return payload, move side effects, exclusions, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids any redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description properly documents the return value fields (id, name, type, parentId, path, depth, casesCount, childFolderCount). It also covers key edge cases and sibling boundaries. For a mutation tool with three simple parameters, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the practical meaning of setting parentId to null versus omitting it, and by noting the same-project requirement for the new parent. The name parameter has no additional semantics beyond the schema, so it doesn't get a 5.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Rename a folder or suite and/or re-parent it.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming create_folder, delete_folder, and move_test_case as alternatives for different operations. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening other definitions.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use create_folder for new folders/suites, delete_folder for archiving, and move_test_case for moving a single case. It also adds operational constraints like 'the new parent must be a folder in the same project' and 'a folder cannot move into itself or into one of its own descendants.' This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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