Rename a folder

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

Annotations already cover non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) and idempotent aspects)Skip. The description adds 'Contents stay,' directly confirming no data loss, and explains the behavior when multiple folders share a name (error lists them). This provides context beyond the structured 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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and parameters, the second covers ambiguity handling, the third reassures non-destructiveness. No fluff, and key info is front-loaded.

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 simple rename tool with no output schema, the description covers identification, optional filtering, disambiguation, and non-destructive nature. It doesn't mention return values, but that's not critical given the simplicity. Overall it gives an agent enough to call it 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%, so baseline is 3. The description largely restates the folderName and type semantics ('found by its id or exact name,' 'optionally only among folders of one document type'), but adds the interaction detail that ambiguous names cause an error listing matches. It does not elevate semantics meaningfully beyond the schema.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('Rename a sidebar folder') and distinguishes it from siblings like folder-delete and journal-rename by specifying 'sidebar folder' and the id/exact-name lookup. It also clarifies scope with the optional document type filter. This is a clear, distinct purpose.

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?

Provides clear usage context: folder can be identified by id or exact name, optionally scoped by document type, and explains how ambiguity is resolved (error lists matching names, then use id). It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but it gives enough context for when to call and even how to recover from ambiguous matches.

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