rename_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the folder is not moved, describes the success confirmation output, and specifies the error condition for non-existent folder IDs. It does not cover permissions or reversibility, but for a rename operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 three sentences, each informative and directly relevant. It front-loads the main action, then provides scope, return behavior, and a usage tip. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, error handling, and a source for folder IDs. It lacks permission requirements or more detailed return structure, but the essentials are present for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including meaning and examples. The description adds a helpful hint to use list_folders for finding folder IDs, but this is minor additional value beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action as renaming a mail folder in Outlook, with the specific scope of changing the display name only. It explicitly distinguishes itself from move_folder by stating 'without moving it', and the verb+resource combination is precise.

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 usage context by mentioning that list_folders should be used to find folder IDs, and implicitly indicates this tool is for renaming rather than moving. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like create_folder or move_folder.

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