Rename Folder

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals important behavior: 'Experimental', 'changes sidebar metadata only', and 'does not rename documents inside the folder'. This adds valuable context about scope and limitations, exceeding what readOnlyHint/destructiveHint alone provide.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with 'Experimental' and the core action. Every word adds value, and the limitation is stated without redundancy.

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 tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's scope and side effects. The 'Experimental' warning and the metadata-only clarification make it sufficiently complete for an agent to decide on usage.

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 100%, and parameter descriptions already explain folderId and name. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for full 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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'rename an AFFiNE organize folder node'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_folder, delete_folder, and move_organize_node by focusing on the rename operation.

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 for renaming a folder node, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or when it should not be used. The added caveat about not renaming documents inside is a behavioral note, not a usage directive.

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