Rename mailbox

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds nothing beyond that, though, such as whether emails inside the folder are preserved or whether parent paths must exist.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the helper reference second. No filler, fully 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?

For a rename operation with full schema coverage and existing annotations, plus no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could note the consequence for contained emails, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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 account, path, and new_path are already documented. The description adds no format or syntax detail (e.g., hierarchy separators or how new_path is interpreted), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Rename') and resource ('an existing mailbox (folder)'), and clarifies the folder synonym. An agent can distinguish it from create_mailbox and delete_mailbox purely from the description.

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?

Provides a helpful pointer to list_mailboxes for discovering valid current paths, which is genuine usage context. However, it gives no when/when-not guidance relative to alternatives like create_mailbox or delete_mailbox, leaving selection logic implied.

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