outlook_rename_folder

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds a meaningful constraint that only user-created folders can be renamed, but it does not mention required permissions, name conflict behavior, or what happens to messages in the folder.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, resource, and scope.

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 operation is simple and annotations cover the safety profile, but with zero schema description coverage the description should do more to explain the two required parameters. It also omits error behavior for system folders or invalid IDs.

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% and both parameters are required. The description only implies that folder_id identifies the folder and that name is the new name, without explaining name constraints, folder ID source, or uniqueness behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('user-created mail folder') with scope ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling folder tools such as create_folder, delete_folder, and list_folders.

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 phrase 'user-created mail folder' implies this is not for system folders, giving useful usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no mention of what to do if the folder does not exist.

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