update_folder

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds little beyond 'rename,' which implies a non-destructive mutation. Since annotations carry most of the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, but it lacks any structural elements like usage notes or examples. Slightly more context could improve it without sacrificing conciseness.

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 two well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention return values (since no output schema) or any side effects. Given the tool's simplicity, a score of 3 is reasonable.

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%, and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or nuance beyond what is already provided, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 'Rename an existing folder,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'archive_folder' or 'create_folder', though it could be more precise by mentioning 'name' explicitly.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_task_details' or 'move_folder' (not listed but implied). There is no mention of limitations or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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