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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the slug and every address under the folder remain unchanged, only the dashboard-facing name changes, a manage-level permission is required, and the tool returns the updated folder. This gives the agent a precise mental model of side effects.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler. The key scoping statement about the slug is front-loaded, and every sentence adds distinct value: what to pass, what stays unchanged, permissions, and return value.

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?

Complete for this tool. It covers required inputs, side-effect scope, authorization, and return value despite no output schema. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and know what to expect.

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 schema already explains folder_id, name, and workspace_id. The description adds little beyond restating 'pass folder_id and name', though it does reinforce that folder_id comes from list_folders. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rename a folder') and clarifies exactly what changes (the dashboard-facing name) and what does not (the slug and addresses). This distinguishes it from siblings like set_folder_slug and rename_site without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Clearly conveys when to use it: rename the display name while preserving the slug and all addresses, and it sets the permission prerequisite ('Only someone who can manage the folder may rename it'). It implies the alternative for slug changes but does not explicitly name a sibling tool like set_folder_slug.

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