Rename folder

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds concrete substance beyond them: the destructive effect is specifically that feeds are relocated, the request cost is quantified, retry accounting is explained, and the non-idempotency is operationalized with "Never blindly replay uncertain writes." This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose and side effect are front-loaded in two short sentences, followed by cost and retry guidance, so the important information leads. The trailing reference sentence is a bit of a grab-bag (limits, URI examples, and "prompts"), and the retry clause is compressed into a dense fragment, but nothing is truly extraneous.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, side effects, cost, and retry safety adequately. The remaining gap is failure/collision semantics on an existing target name and what a successful response confirms, which an agent would need before calling this confidently.

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 100%, so both old_name and new_name are already documented, and the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond restating the rename relationship. Notably it does not say what happens when new_name already exists (merge, overwrite, or error), which is the one semantic an agent would most want here.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Rename a folder/label") and immediately states the side effect: all feeds in the old folder move to the new name. It is clearly distinguishable from the tag-oriented siblings (manage_tags, batch_manage_tags) by scoping itself to folders/labels, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

It gives actionable operating context: cost of 1 Zone 2 request, safe-read retries counting against the budget, honoring cached status/cooldown, and the instruction never to blindly replay uncertain writes. What is missing is an explicit when-not-to-use or a pointer to a distinct sibling for a different operation (e.g. reassign_feeds, manage_tags) — it points only to a generic usage resource.

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