rename_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the rename requires auth, whether it is reversible, what happens if new_name already exists, or whether the folder's contents are affected.

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 single sentence is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: there is no front-loaded scope, no parameter mapping, and nothing that earns its place beyond echoing the tool name.

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 mutating tool with three undocumented parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate — an agent cannot distinguish the two required string parameters or predict side effects.

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 0% for all three parameters, and the description adds nothing. It does not clarify that "name" identifies the existing folder and "new_name" is the target, nor what "account" selects — a critical ambiguity in a rename tool.

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?

"Renomeia uma pasta" is a literal restatement of the tool name rename_folder — same verb, same resource — with no scope, no differentiation from siblings like create_folder/delete_folder/move_email, and no hint about what makes a rename succeed or fail.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. folder must exist, new_name must not collide), and no mention of alternatives such as create_folder + move. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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