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 on top: the permission requirements, the class of folders that will fail (root, conflicting names), and post-failure verification advice. The closing line slightly softens the idempotency picture by implying uncertain outcomes need inspection, which is useful caution rather than a contradiction.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by constraints, so an agent can scan it quickly. The final retry sentence is somewhat opaque about what "inspect" means or with which tool.

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 the failure modes and auth requirements are covered. However, for a two-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions anywhere, the meaning of the inputs is left entirely to inference.

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 0% and the description never explains folder_hash (the identifier passed in) or folder_name (the new name) — their format, constraints, or what the hash must refer to. With zero coverage from the schema, the description carries the full burden here and does not meet it.

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 an editable folder") and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling filesfm_rename_file by scoping to folders. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the resource noun 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?

Gives clear preconditions and exclusions: only editable folders, root folders cannot be renamed, conflicting names are rejected, and files:write plus account permissions are required. It stops short of pointing to alternatives (e.g. filesfm_move_folder) or naming the tool to use for a conflict retry.

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