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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the parent folder is not moved, which is a useful trait, but it omits critical behavioral details such as failure conditions (e.g., name conflicts), permission requirements, reversibility, and return values. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, consisting of a single short phrase. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. While it is appropriately compact for the tool's apparent simplicity, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, but the conciseness criterion rewards efficiency, so a 4 is given.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description must provide sufficient context for the agent. It only states 'does not move parent', which is minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or why one would use this over move_folder. The schema covers parameter definitions but not the broader operational context, leaving the description incomplete.

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?

The schema provides 100% parameter description coverage for both folder_path and new_name. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 '改名 (不动 parent)' clearly identifies the action as rename and the resource as a folder (implied by the tool name). The phrase '不动 parent' distinguishes it from move_folder, which is a sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state that the target is a folder or that the operation is on a folder name, relying somewhat on the tool name.

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 hints that this tool only renames and does not move the parent, implying that if relocation is needed, another tool (like move_folder) should be used. This is an implied usage guideline, not an explicit one. It does not name alternatives or provide clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use criteria, so it falls short of a 4.

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