acc_rename_folder

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already communicates that this is a write operation, and the description adds valuable context by clarifying that contents and permissions are unaffected. This addresses the most likely user concern for a rename operation, though it does not discuss potential failure modes or authentication requirements.

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 clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical is concise and informative.

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 rename operation with an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It conveys the primary behavior and side effects, though it omits any note about error conditions or name uniqueness constraints, which are not essential for this low-complexity tool.

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 description does not elaborate on the parameters, but the schema already provides descriptions for folder_id and project_id, covering two of three parameters. The remaining parameter, new_name, is self-explanatory from its title and the tool's purpose, so the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Rename a folder'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The parenthetical 'contents and permissions unaffected' adds a useful scope qualifier that distinguishes it from sibling tools like acc_move_folder or acc_delete_folder.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as acc_move_folder, acc_create_folder, or acc_delete_folder. While the verb 'rename' implies usage, the tool does not state any context, exclusions, or alternative references.

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