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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, without explaining side effects, path semantics, conflict handling, or return behavior. This is minimal and leaves too much to inference.

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 one short sentence with no filler, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices informational value, so it is not fully 'appropriately sized' for a tool with three required parameters.

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?

With three required parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain subfolder semantics, how the tool differs from related operations, or any constraints, leaving critical information for correct invocation missing.

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% and the description does not clarify the meaning or relationship of folder, old_subpath, or new_subpath. The agent is left to guess whether these are paths, names, IDs, or something else.

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 clear verb ('Renomme') and resource ('un sous-dossier'), so the primary function is understandable. It implicitly distinguishes from rename_note by targeting folders, but does not explicitly contrast with other folder operations like move_folder or duplicate_folder.

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 versus alternatives such as rename_note, move_folder, or duplicate_folder. No context about prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria is provided.

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