rename_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals automatic counter recalculation, which is a behavioral trait. However, it omits side effects, permissions, or error conditions applicable to a mutation tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main action. However, it is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool, which slightly reduces conciseness value due to missing information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate. It fails to explain the critical 'xml' parameter and the 'backup' flag, and does not describe the return value or side effects, making it incomplete.

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 schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description explains 'folder' and 'new_name' but omits 'xml' (a required param) and 'backup', leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning or usage.

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 folder in a file) and includes specific behavior (auto-recalculation of counter). It differentiates from siblings because there is no other rename tool, but no explicit distinction is made.

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 usage tips for the 'folder' and 'new_name' parameters, such as path format and the optional suffix for the counter. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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