rename_folder

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

With annotations present, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what readOnlyHint=false already implies. It does not disclose potential side effects such as renaming affecting child folder paths, failure modes when the folder does not exist, or whether the operation is reversible.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, though its brevity borders on under-specification.

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 no output schema and no enums, but the description fails to mention important constraints like non-renamable system folders, character limits, or hierarchical implications. It is minimally complete for a trivial rename but lacks the context needed for safe invocation in a mail system with folder hierarchies.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain folder_id or new_name at all. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but no additional meaning (e.g., format constraints, required permissions, or examples) is provided, leaving the semantics entirely to inference.

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 the verb 'rename' and the resource 'mail folder', making the action clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_folder and delete_folder, though it lacks any additional scoping or clarifying details.

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 indication of when to use this tool, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives. There is no context about folder existence, system folder restrictions, or relationship to create_folder/delete_folder.

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