Rename RIS folder

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

Adds real behavioral facts beyond the annotations: changes take effect on the server immediately, there is no undo step, and the call runs under the desktop session login (auth context). The idempotency note ('the same name again sends nothing') usefully reinforces idempotentHint=true. It omits error/edge-case behavior for a rename, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 verb and resource, then a sequence of short, information-dense sentences covering the no-op case, the alternative tool, permanence, and auth. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a two-parameter rename with a fully documented schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, permanence, idempotency, the sibling to use for moving, and the auth context.

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% ('new name', 'id of the folder, from rillsoft_folder_ris_list'), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds only the framing that this edits the folder's label; no additional format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies 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?

States a specific verb and resource (renames a project folder on the Rillsoft Integration Server) plus scope (logged-in client) and clarifies it is a label edit, not a general update. It explicitly disambiguates from the closest sibling ('Moving a folder is rillsoft_folder_ris_move'), so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Provides a concrete alternative for the ambiguous case by naming rillsoft_folder_ris_move, and notes that re-sending the same name is a no-op. It does not explicitly say when to use this vs. folder_ris_create/delete/list, but those are unambiguous from the verb.

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