Rename a snippet folder

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the authenticated-user scope and otherwise repeats the rename action; it does not disclose what happens to the old folder name, whether contents are affected, or how conflicts are handled. No contradiction with annotations.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence largely restates the first, adding only 'for the authenticated user.' It is not bloated, but the redundancy prevents a higher score.

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?

For a mutating tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, this is thin: no behavior, error cases, preconditions, or differentiation from the metadata-update sibling are provided. The operation is simple enough that a confident agent might guess correctly, but the description leaves too much unstated.

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 description never mentions oldName or newName, and schema description coverage is 0%, so neither parameter is explained beyond its name. The schema also marks 0 required parameters, leaving the agent without clarity that both names are likely needed for a rename operation.

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 states a concrete action ('Rename a snippet folder') and identifies the resource as a snippet folder for the authenticated user. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like termix_snippets_update_snippet_folder_metadata or termix_hosts_rename_folder, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The only added context is the authenticated-user scope, which is not a usage rule.

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