rename_mailbox

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

The description does not add substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate false for readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the agent knows it's a mutation that is not destructive. The description does not mention side effects on subfolders or permissions, which would be helpful but is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 a single sentence with a useful hint. No wasted words, efficiently communicates the core action and a key prerequisite.

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 simple rename operation, the description and schema together are complete. It references a sibling tool for preparation. No output schema is needed as rename actions typically don't return complex results. The tool's simplicity justifies the brevity.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions (path, account, new_path). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Rename' and the resource 'mailbox (folder)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_mailbox and delete_mailbox by specifying the operation. The mention of list_mailboxes for seeing current paths further clarifies its purpose.

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?

The description gives a clear context: when you need to rename a mailbox folder, use this tool, and use list_mailboxes first to see current paths. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling context implies alternatives like create_mailbox for new ones or delete_mailbox for removal.

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