rename_library_folderRename a library folder.
Args:
folder_id: The folder UUID
name: New folder name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| folder_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description simply repeats the rename action without mentioning side effects, permissions, reversibility, or effect on folder contents. It provides no additional transparency beyond what annotations convey.
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 extremely concise, with the purpose stated first in a single sentence, followed by a minimal Args section that adds necessary parameter details. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
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 the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, an output schema present, and a clear rename operation), the description covers the essential invocation details. It does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., folder not found, duplicate name), but these are not critical for a straightforward rename and are partly handled by the presence of an output schema.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by defining both parameters: 'folder_id: The folder UUID' and 'name: New folder name'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema (which only lists types and titles), clarifying that folder_id is the unique identifier and name is the replacement name.
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 'Rename a library folder' clearly specifies the action (rename) and the resource (library folder), distinguishing it from sibling tools like move_library_folder, create_library_folder, and delete_library_folder. It is a specific verb+resource statement, not a tautology.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the tool's name and purpose—it is for renaming an existing library folder—but it does not state when it should be preferred over move or delete, nor any prerequisites like folder existence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Portfolio, alert, watchlist, library, journal, and search tools have clearly separated purposes with no overlapping functionality. Even similar tools like get_portfolio_statistics and get_positions provide different outputs.
The majority follow a clear verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_portfolio, delete_library_item). However, 'finance_search' inverts the verb-noun order and 'run_deepdive' uses a less common verb, creating minor but noticeable exceptions.
31 tools is on the high side but each serves a distinct purpose across portfolio management, alerts, watchlists, library, journal, search, and bug reporting. The library subsystem alone accounts for 11 tools (CRUD + versions + move + rename + search), which is justifiable for a full document manager.
Core operations are present but several lifecycle gaps exist: no delete_watchlist, delete_portfolio, update_portfolio, update_alert, or delete_transaction. The journal and deepdive areas also lack update/delete capabilities. Agents may hit dead ends when trying to remove or modify certain resources.