Xray Rename Folder

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description is not obligated to repeat them. It adds no behavioral context of its own – nothing about how the rename resolves paths, whether it overwrites, or what happens across the repository/test plan variants.

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 sentence with no waste, but its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being efficient compression of useful detail. It is front-loaded but says almost nothing.

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 tool is a mutation with two distinct folder contexts (Test Repository via project, or Test Plan via test_plan), and the description never mentions this branching or any constraints. Annotations and the output schema cover safety and return values, but the description leaves the operational context too thin for a folder-renaming mutation.

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%, so all four parameters including path, new_name, project, and test_plan are documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (folder), so the basic action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from close siblings like xray_move_folder or xray_delete_folder, nor does it scope which folder types are affected.

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 rename vs move_folder or move_to_folder, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or the repository-vs-test-plan distinction. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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