rename_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only adds the "IMAP" protocol qualifier. It says nothing about permissions required, whether contained messages are preserved, behavior on missing/duplicate names, or error cases for what is clearly a mutating operation.

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 short sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 described. However, for a mutating, unannotated, two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves out permissions, failure modes, and parameter formats, which is not complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently.

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% for two required parameters. The description does not explain old_name/new_name semantics — e.g. path separators, case sensitivity, or whether the folder is identified hierarchically — so it fails to compensate for the schema gap. Titles ("Old Name"/"New Name") make the fields self-explanatory, which prevents a 1.

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 IMAP folder"), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like create_folder and delete_folder by implication of the different operation. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. folder must exist), and no mention of alternatives. An agent can infer usage from the sibling set, but nothing in the text guides the choice.

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