Rename a user-created Outlook mail folder by its ID to keep your mailbox organized. Use it when folder names no longer match their contents or purpose.
Rename a user-created mail folder by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| folder_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral constraint — that only user-created folders can be renamed, implying system folders will fail — but says nothing about error behavior, permissions, or name conflicts.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.
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 simple two-parameter idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core operation but omits parameter format details and failure conditions (e.g., duplicate names, non-user-created folders). Adequate but with clear gaps.
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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'By ID' hints at folder_id being an identifier, but neither parameter's format, validity constraints, nor whether 'name' is the new name is clarified.
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 a specific verb (rename) and resource (user-created mail folder), which distinguishes it from outlook_create_folder and outlook_delete_folder. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the operation and target are unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as outlook_create_folder or outlook_delete_folder, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.