Rename Folder

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds genuinely new information beyond that: it is experimental, it mutates sidebar metadata only, and contained documents are untouched. It does not address permissions or the non-idempotent hint, which keeps it from a 5.

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, no waste, with the experimental status and the important negative scope ('does not rename documents inside') front-loaded where the agent will read them.

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?

With a full input schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the one thing structured data cannot: that this is experimental and narrow in effect. Only the permission/auth expectations for a workspace-scoped mutation are left unstated.

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% with all three parameters documented, including the conditional requirement on workspaceId, so the schema carries the load. The description contributes nothing parameter-specific beyond baseline.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('rename an AFFiNE organize folder node') plus an explicit scope boundary that separates it from document-title operations in the sibling set such as update_doc_title. The agent can identify the target object type without inspecting the schema.

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 'Experimental' tag and the note that it only touches sidebar metadata give implicit context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g. update_folder_icon, move_organize_node, or update_doc_title for documents). Usage is inferable but not routed.

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