Byt namn på mapp eller etikett

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the same-prefix rule, the system-folder prohibition, and the error-on-failure contract ("annars kastas ett fel med förklaring").

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?

Front-loads the operation, then constraints, then args and return value, with no filler sentences. Slightly padded by repeating the return value that an output schema already covers, but otherwise tight.

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 an output schema present, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: scope, constraints, parameter formats, and failure behavior. It is close to complete, with only minor gaps around length limits and exact error conditions.

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 must carry the burden, and it does: it gives an example value for old_name ("Folders/Projekt") and new_name ("Folders/Projekt 2026") and states the prefix must match. It compensates well, only missing explicit notes on the 1–255 length bounds that the schema enforces.

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?

States a specific verb (rename) and resource (folder or label), and the Folders/… vs Labels/… distinction separates it from siblings like create_folder and delete_folder. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when the tool does NOT apply: system folders (INBOX, Sent, Trash, All Mail) cannot be renamed, and a folder cannot become a label or vice versa. It gives clear context and exclusions, though it never names an alternative tool to use instead for those excluded cases.

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