Updates the name of the specified proxy 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 largely covered. The description adds the useful scoping fact that name is the only editable property, but it omits error behavior, required permissions, and whether the folder identity/members are preserved on rename. A 3 reflects that the annotations do the heavy lifting while the description contributes only a modest extra fact.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the scoping constraint. The first sentence largely restates the title, so a small amount is redundant, but the second sentence earns its place.

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 single-field rename mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but thin. No output schema exists, so the description could have described the response or failure modes; instead it stops after stating the editable property. Usable but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 the schema already documents name, workspaceId, and proxyFolderId with formats/defaults. The description adds the single nuance that name is the sole editable field, reinforcing the mutation target, but provides no syntax, length, or uniqueness constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter documentation.

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 specific verb ('updates the name') and resource ('proxy folder'), so an agent knows this is a rename operation rather than a general update. It narrows scope further by asserting name is the only editable property, which implicitly contrasts it with broader mutation tools. It does not name any sibling tool, so differentiation from create_proxy_folder/delete_proxy_folder is inferred rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named among the many sibling folder tools. The only usable signal is the implied constraint that this tool is for renaming, with get_proxy_folders/create_proxy_folder/delete_proxy_folder left unmentioned. Usage is inferred, not guided.

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