Rename Folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Rename' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, whether the change is reversible, what happens to references to the old label, or if there are rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward operation like renaming.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral implications, error conditions, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively without guessing.

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 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (graph_id, folder_id, new_label) are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'a folder's display label', which loosely relates to 'new_label' but doesn't explain what graph_id or folder_id are, their formats, or how to obtain them. The description adds minimal value 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 clearly states the action ('Rename') and the resource ('a folder's display label'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_folder' or 'delete_folder' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'rename_artifact' which might be a similar operation on a different resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing folder), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'rename_artifact' or 'move_folder'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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