eda_dmt_folder_modify_folder_name

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the return value ('returns: whether modification succeeded') and the action, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, behavior on missing folder IDs, or whether the operation is reversible. This is minimal for a mutation tool; the agent has no idea about failure modes or prerequisites beyond the parameter names.

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: a function signature and a one-line Chinese purpose plus return note. It is front-loaded with the signature and includes no unnecessary words. It's appropriately concise, though it could be slightly better structured if it separated the purpose from the signature, but as is it's efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does state the return boolean, but it doesn't explain prerequisites (like having valid UUIDs), error handling, or any side effects. An agent might know how to call it but not understand failure conditions or how to verify success beyond the boolean. More context is needed for a robust call.

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?

The input schema only defines 'args' and 'windowId' with no semantic detail, so the description's function signature is the only source for the actual parameters: teamUuid, folderUuid, folderName. It provides names and types, which is essential, but it doesn't explain what these represent (e.g., how to obtain teamUuid) or any constraints. Since the schema is high coverage for its own fields but the actual parameters are absent, the description partially compensates but not deeply, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 the function signature 'dmt_Folder.modifyFolderName' and a clear purpose line '修改文件夹名称' (modify folder name). This clearly identifies the verb (modify) and resource (folder name), and it is distinct from sibling tools like modify_folder_description or move_folder_to_folder, so an agent can easily distinguish it.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions; it simply states the operation. An agent must infer from the name and context that this is the tool for renaming a folder, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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