Rename Folder

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the constraint that protected system folders cannot be renamed, which is a behavioral limit. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., impact on subfolders or email paths) beyond what annotations convey.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No superfluous information; every word contributes to clarity.

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 that an output schema exists (return values are documented), the description adequately covers the tool's role, constraints (system folders), and parameter count. It could mention folder existence prerequisites or error states, but it is reasonably complete for a rename operation.

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 describes all 3 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain expected formats, validation rules, or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool renames custom folders or labels, with a specific verb ('rename') and resource ('custom folder or label'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_folder, delete_folder by specifying the action. The note about protected system folders adds clarity.

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?

While not explicitly naming alternatives, the description implies use when renaming custom folders/labels and not for system folders. It provides context by differentiating from other folder operations (create, delete, move) among siblings.

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