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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: the edit is staged and never published, and existing notes survive the rename. That materially narrows what an agent fears from a 'destructive' mutation. Auth/container requirements are still unstated.

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?

A single dense sentence with the key constraint ('staged, never published') front-loaded, plus a harmless revision tag. No filler, though the parenthetical placement slightly buries the folder-id keying.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, a three-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage and an entirely unexplained 'container' parameter leaves a real gap the description does not close.

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 0% across three required parameters. The description explains folder_id and implicitly name ('Rename...'), but the 'container' parameter is never mentioned anywhere, leaving an agent to guess its purpose and valid values.

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') plus the scope ('IN the managed AdCopilot workspace') and the lookup key ('by folder id'). The only weakness is that it does not explicitly contrast with gtm_create_folder or the other gtm_update_* siblings, though the operation type is unambiguous.

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?

'Staged, never published' tells the agent the change won't affect live GTM, which implies when this is safe to call. However, it never says when to prefer this over gtm_create_folder, what prerequisites exist (workspace/container selection, publish flow), or what to do afterward.

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