Rename Contact Folder

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Rename a personal contact folder.' It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the rename is permanent, whether it affects existing contacts, or if any special permissions are required.

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, front-loaded sentence stating the operation, followed by a concise Chinese translation. It is appropriately sized and every word contributes to clarity.

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?

The tool is simple with two self-explanatory parameters and full schema coverage, so the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks contextual details such as whether the folder must be a personal folder vs. a system folder, or any side effects, so it is not fully complete.

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 provides full coverage with descriptions for both parameters (folderId and displayName), so the description does not need to add much. However, the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, meriting a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the action (rename) and the object (personal contact folder), distinguishing it from sibling tools like contacts_create_folder and contacts_delete_folder. The Chinese translation reinforces the same intent without ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as creating or deleting a folder. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which renaming is appropriate.

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