Rename Email Folder

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

The description adds behavioral traits beyond annotations: it warns that user confirmation is recommended and lists error conditions (ValueError for invalid folder_id or empty new_display_name). Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false but lack detail on confirmation or error handling.

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 concise (4 sentences) and well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. The emoji front-loads the action, and every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 rename tool with 3 parameters and existing output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return ('Updated folder object with new displayName'), and error cases. It lacks details about authentication requirements beyond the account_id parameter, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explicitly defining each parameter in the Args section: 'folder_id: The folder ID to rename', 'new_display_name: New name for the folder', 'account_id: Microsoft account ID'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 clearly states the action ('Rename a mail folder') and the resource ('mail folder'), with a specific verb 'rename' that distinguishes it from sibling tools like emailfolders_create, delete, or move. The title 'Rename Email Folder' reinforces this.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., emailfolders_move, emailfolders_update). The context of 'renaming' is implied but no comparison or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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