rename_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'renames' without explaining side effects such as possible loss of associated data, permission requirements, error conditions, or reversibility. For a mutation operation, this leaves substantial hidden behavior unexplained.

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 a single, short sentence with no filler, which is structurally efficient and has the core action front-loaded. However, its brevity is not a virtue when it omits crucial contextual information; it is concise but at the expense of necessary detail, so it earns a high score for conciseness but not the top.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, one might argue the core action is self-evident. Yet with no annotations and a description that is merely a translation of its name, the agent is left with no information about ownership of the folder, whether the operation is empathetic, or what the return behavior is. The terse description, in particular, does not fully cover what the agent needs to know.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the parameter descriptions are completely absent from the schema and the tool description does not compensate. There is no elaboration on what "name" and "new_name" represent, how they should be formatted, or what constraints apply. The description literally adds zero information about the parameters.

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 "Renomeia uma pasta" translates to "Renames a folder", which is essentially the same as the tool name itself. It restates the title without providing any additional context or distinguishing details about what this operation entails, and it is written in Portuguese while sibling tool names are in English, which adds ambiguity for an agent operating in English.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings like create_folder, delete_folder, or list_folders. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.

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