Rename Mail Folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the need for delegated Mail.ReadWrite permission, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, error scenarios, or the response format. For a rename operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, with one clear English sentence and a brief permission note. The Chinese intents are compact and provide localization value without bloat. Every element earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential action and permission requirement. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. The schema fully documents parameters, so no additional parameter context is needed. It lacks return value details, but this is not critical for a simple rename.

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% for both parameters (folderId and displayName). The description adds little beyond the schema, only implying that folderId is the target and displayName is the new name. Since the schema already documents these, the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Rename a mailbox folder' with a specific verb and resource. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_create_folder, mail_delete_folder, and mail_list_folders. The title reinforces the purpose.

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 implies usage (when you need to rename a mailbox folder) but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. The permission requirement is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline. No alternatives or conditions are mentioned.

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