rename_folder

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

Annotations only provide idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and delivers: it discloses that the rename propagates to all descendant folder paths, that the API does NOT enforce sibling-name uniqueness (verified live, contradicting create_folder's 400), and that the public API cannot list folders so the numeric id must be retained. This is exactly the behavioral context beyond annotations that an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then the constraints and consequences. Dense but nearly every sentence carries distinct information; the parenthetical asides make it slightly longer than strictly necessary but nothing is wasted.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description documents the return value ({ id, name } with the single-segment semantics), covers all three parameters, the uniqueness hazard, and the id-retention requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that name replaces ONE segment (not a path), cannot reparent the folder, and contrasts the return's single-segment name with create_folder's full-path echo. customFields omission semantics are already covered by the schema description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rename a folder') plus the secondary capability ('and/or set its custom fields') and the underlying endpoint PUT /folder/{folderId}. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings create_folder and delete_folder, and it explicitly clarifies that name is a single segment, not a path.

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?

Gives explicit when/when-not guidance: name cannot move a folder, invalid names are rejected before any HTTP call, and the agent is told to update paths held elsewhere (create_test_case/create_test_run folder args, TQL filters) after renaming. It also names the alternative route to finding folder ids (Jira UI or get_folder_tree when the internal API is enabled).

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