rename_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It covers validation rules, double verification, and Unicode support but omits mutation effects, success/failure responses, or security implications. The disclosure is partial.

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 well-structured with sections and bullet points, front-loading the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, though there is minor redundancy (e.g., 'double name verification' appears twice). Overall efficient.

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?

Given three required parameters and an output schema, the description covers validation rules, verification steps, and constraints. It explains how rename differs from siblings, but could mention output or error handling for completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context (e.g., double verification) but mostly repeats schema details like character constraints for new_name. It provides marginal extra meaning.

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 'Rename a folder in Apple Notes by ID with enhanced name verification,' specifying the verb 'rename' and the resource 'folder' with a distinct scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like move_folder and delete_folder by focusing on renaming with verification.

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 usage through validation rules and features but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_folder or move_folder. It lacks guidance on preconditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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