rename_folder

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral details such as error handling, permissions required, side effects, or what happens if the old name doesn't exist. The description is entirely silent on these traits, placing full burden on the description, which it fails to meet.

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 very short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a simple argument list. There is no superfluous text, making it efficient. However, the extreme brevity means it loses some value due to missing necessary context.

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?

Even though the tool is simple and an output schema is present, the description lacks essential context about failure conditions, naming rules, or behavior on invalid input. It doesn't explain what the output contains or when the operation succeeds. Given the minimal annotations, the description is incomplete for reliable tool invocation.

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%, so the description is the only source for parameter meaning. It provides 'old_name: Nuvarande namn' and 'new_name: Nytt namn,' but these are direct translations of the parameter names and add little beyond what the names already imply. The definitions are minimal and do not clarify formats, constraints, or edge cases.

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 states 'Byt namn på en mapp' meaning 'Rename a folder,' which is a clear verb+resource pairing. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like create_folder or delete_folder, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the action and lists arguments, with no context on prerequisites, conditions, or situations where this tool is preferred.

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