Update Mailbox Folder

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and not open world. The description adds value by stating the constraint on system folders and the behavior of resyncing rules, which are useful behavioral traits not captured by annotations.

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, direct sentences with no fluff. The key information is front-loaded: purpose first, then constraints and side effects. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the essential behavioral aspects (constraint on system folders, side effect on rules) needed to use the tool correctly. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is 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 description coverage is 75%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond the schema; 'name' is described in schema as 'New custom folder name', which matches. No additional parameter context is provided, so no extra value.

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 explicitly states 'Rename a custom mailbox folder', clearly identifying the verb (rename) and resource (custom mailbox folder). It differentiates from siblings like create_mailbox_folder and delete_mailbox_folder by focusing on renaming, and adds constraints (cannot rename system folders).

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 when-to-use (renaming custom folders) and when-not-to-use (system folders cannot be renamed), and mentions a side effect (rules targeting the folder are resynced), offering comprehensive guidance.

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