Rename attribute folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the return shape {ok, folder:{path,guid}} in the absence of an output schema, though it does not explain what renaming destroys (reference breakage) or error behavior.

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 terse fragments, front-loaded with the core action and then the return values. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 3-param mutation tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers purpose and output sufficiently. It could note whether the folder must pre-exist or how references behave, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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 the schema fully documents folder, newName, and attributeType (with its enum). The description's '(path or GUID)' only restates the folder parameter and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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+resource (renames an attribute folder) and clarifies the accepted target forms (path or GUID). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling folder tools like create_attribute_folders, delete_attribute_folders, and move_attributes_to_folder, though it does not name them.

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 implies the operation but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisites (e.g., folder must exist, permissions). Usage is inferable from the name and siblings only.

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