Rename folder

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld behavior, so safety is partly covered. But the description adds nothing beyond the bare operation: it does not say what happens on a name collision, whether the folder must pre-exist, or whether the rename is immediately visible to other clients.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded and free of waste, so it is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise for a two-parameter mutation tool.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description carries the burden and falls short: it omits collision/error behavior, required permissions, and the meaning of folderId. An agent would have to guess at edge cases before invoking.

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% for two required parameters (folderId, name), and the description supplies no compensating detail. It never clarifies whether name must be unique within its parent, whether folderId is a path or ID, or any format constraints.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Rename a Library folder'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not, however, differentiate itself from related siblings such as axcel_library_move or axcel_folder_create, which would require explicit naming.

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 like axcel_library_move (to relocate) or axcel_folder_create (to make a new folder). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context beyond the operation itself.

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