Updates the name of the specified profile folder.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered there. The description adds nothing on top: it never explains that the rename overwrites the existing folder name, what happens if 'name' is omitted, or what permissions are needed — notable given the destructiveHint flag on a simple rename.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding, so it is not verbose. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency — the one sentence carries no actionable information.

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 3 params, full schema coverage and annotations present, the structured data covers most invocation mechanics. But the description asserts the tool updates the folder name while the schema marks 'name' as optional (only profileFolderId is required), leaving an unresolved ambiguity about a no-name call that the description should have clarified.

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 all three parameters (name, workspaceId, profileFolderId) are already documented with meanings and defaults. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 restates the title almost verbatim ('update the profile folder name'), adding no scope, no constraints, and no differentiation from siblings such as update_profile_folder, update_proxy_folder, or update_profile. An agent learns nothing beyond the tool name itself.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. The near-identical sibling name update_profile_folder (proxy folders) makes the omission of disambiguation a real gap.

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