Rename folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: asset URLs are unchanged after the rename, and the first call is non-executing and returns needs_confirmation plus a confirm_token. It doesn't describe failure modes outside dynamic folder mode.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (recursive scope, mode restriction, confirmation requirement) are all front-loaded and unmissable.

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 rich annotations and an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers scope, mode restriction, and the confirmation handshake, leaving only error behavior (e.g., what happens outside dynamic folder mode) unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the relationship between calls that explains why confirm_token exists ('runs exactly that plan') and how dry_run interacts with it, which is meaning beyond the field-level text.

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 specific verbs ('rename or move'), the exact resource ('a folder'), and the recursive scope ('with everything in it'), which is what separates it from cloudinary_move (asset-level moves). An agent can pick between them without reading either schema.

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?

Names a hard precondition ('dynamic folder mode only') and explains the two-step confirmation flow that governs real usage. It does not explicitly exclude or route to cloudinary_move/cloudinary_mkdir, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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