renameFolderRename an existing Thunderbird mail folder by specifying its folder path and new name; on IMAP accounts, verify completion with listFolders.
Rename an existing mail folder. Note: on IMAP accounts, server-side completion is asynchronous; verify with listFolders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newName | Yes | New name for the folder | |
| folderPath | Yes | URI of the folder to rename (from listFolders) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: server-side completion on IMAP is asynchronous, so a caller must poll listFolders to confirm the rename. That is non-obvious and goes beyond structured data, though it says nothing about permission requirements or what happens if the new name collides.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a single operational caveat. No filler and nothing redundant.
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 two-parameter rename with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential risk (asynchronous IMAP completion). It could be slightly fuller on error/collision behavior, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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% and both parameters are documented in-schema, including that folderPath comes from listFolders. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Rename an existing mail folder'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It is not explicitly distinguished from siblings like moveFolder or createFolder, but the resource specificity makes selection unambiguous.
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?
It supplies a post-condition workflow for IMAP accounts (verify with listFolders), which is useful implied guidance. However, it gives no when-to-use vs. alternative guidance (e.g., moveFolder for relocating) and no stated prerequisites or failure conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.