ticktick_update_folder

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=false (indicates mutation), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds minimal context by specifying 'rename' as the action, but doesn't elaborate on permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens to existing folder contents. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with just one sentence ('Rename a project folder.'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's core function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's moderate complexity (a mutation operation), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about usage scenarios, error handling, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 mentions 'rename' but doesn't detail parameters. The input schema has 100% description coverage (both 'folder_id' and 'name' are well-described), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides about these two required parameters.

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 'Rename a project folder' clearly states the verb (rename) and resource (project folder), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'ticktick_update_project' or 'ticktick_update_tag', which have similar naming patterns for different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing folder), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools such as 'ticktick_update_project' (which might update other project attributes) or 'ticktick_create_folder' (for creating new folders).

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