update_template_folder

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not idempotent and not destructive. The description adds context that templates are unaffected, which clarifies nondestructive behavior. It also specifies the return structure (id, name, count), going beyond annotations.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear one-line purpose, usage note, and separate Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description is complete for a simple rename tool: it covers purpose, effect, prerequisite, and return structure. The missing documentation of the 'account' parameter is a minor gap, but overall the tool is understandable.

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 description details two of three parameters: folder_id (including how to obtain it) and name (new display name). The optional 'account' parameter is not mentioned, but the required parameters are well-explained. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates adequately.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('existing template folder'). It also explains that templates assigned are unaffected, which distinguishes it from other folder operations like create or delete.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool ('rename a folder's display name') and mentions a prerequisite tool ('list_template_folders' to discover IDs). It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios, but the simplicity of the operation makes that acceptable.

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