rename_label

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

The annotation destructiveHint: false already covers non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable context by explaining that messages retain the label under the new name, which clarifies the actual behavioral effect of the rename. It doesn't discuss permissions or edge cases, but for a simple rename this is sufficient.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the purpose and effect, the second gives the alternative tool. Every word earns its place, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 with two self-describing parameters and a non-destructive annotation, the description covers all essential context: the action, the namespace, the effect on messages, and the alternative for folders. No output schema is present, and none is needed.

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 descriptions for 'name' and 'newName' fully document both parameters, including the automatic handling of the Labels/ prefix. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond referencing the namespace, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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'), the resource ('a Proton label'), and adds specificity by noting it's an IMAP folder under the Labels/ namespace. It explicitly distinguishes from folder renaming by referencing rename_folder, making the purpose 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'For renaming a folder use rename_folder with a Folders/ prefix.' This directly addresses usage boundaries and steers users away from misusing the tool.

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