rename_folder

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutating-but-safe profile is covered. The description adds the folder 0/1 exclusion and the dry-run default, but is silent on permissions, reversibility, and error behavior beyond 'Dry-run by default' (which also restates the schema default).

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The parenthetical '(not 0 or 1)' is telegraphic and context-dependent, but overall the size is well matched to the tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, but for a 3-param mutation with 0% schema coverage it leaves gaps: what dry-run reports, required auth, and what happens if folder 0/1 is targeted. Adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 0% for three parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: it constrains folder_id (not 0 or 1) and explains dry_run's default behavior, but leaves 'name' (the new folder name) entirely uninterpreted.

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 ('Rename a collection folder') that an agent can immediately distinguish from create_folder and delete_folder. The '(not 0 or 1)' note clarifies the target scope, though it never names the sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the '(not 0 or 1)' restriction and 'Dry-run by default' hint at when/how to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing among the folder siblings.

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