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. The word 'rename' implies mutation, but the description does not state what happens to contained messages, subfolders, or mailboxes, whether the operation is reversible, or whether special permissions or naming constraints apply. The single sentence reveals only the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is slightly thin on behavioral context, but as a concise statement of the operation it is well structured and 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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, and the mutating nature of the operation, the description is under-specified. An agent is not told about side effects, constraints, or what constitutes a successful rename, so additional context would be needed for confident invocation.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about oldName/newName beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('existing mailbox/folder in the one.com mail account'), making the core purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling create/delete/move tools, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_folder, delete_folder, or move_emails. Context such as 'when renaming an existing folder's label' is only implied; no exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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