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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that all notes within the folder (including subfolders) are affected and that they 'will be reindexed and synced'. This is consequential behavioral context that annotations do not provide, even though they hint the operation is a write and not idempotent. It does not mention potential link breakage, but the disclosed effects are meaningful.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope, then adds the most important behavioral effect (reindex/sync) without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists and the annotations cover read/write behavior, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation: it names the scope, the side effect, and implies the folder path semantics. It does not cover all edge cases (e.g., missing folder, conflicts), but these are not necessary for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, and the schema already thoroughly documents vault_id, old_folder, and new_folder. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'rename' with the resource 'folder' and adds critical scope details: 'all notes within it (including subfolders)'. This makes it unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like rename_note and delete_folder, and the reindex/sync side effect clarifies exactly what the operation accomplishes.

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 implies when to use the tool (renaming a folder) and clearly differentiates from note-level operations by its title and verb, but it does not explicitly state alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites (e.g., 'use rename_note for individual notes'). The usage context is clear but left to inference.

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