edit_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Rename' implies a mutation, but there is no disclosure about permissions, side effects, reversibility, error behavior, or what happens if the folder ID does not exist. The behavioral picture is thin.

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 clear sentence with action and resource first. Every word earns its place; there is no irrelevant detail or 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 simple two-parameter rename, the description is serviceable, but with no annotations and no output schema, the agent does not know the return format, error conditions, or any broader constraints. Missing this context makes it less than fully complete.

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. 'By its ID' clarifies the id parameter's role, and 'rename' implies name is the new folder name. However, it does not explicitly map each parameter, and the simple param names already convey much of the meaning.

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), the resource (existing OmniFocus folder), and the identifying mechanism (by its ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_folder, delete_folder, and get_folder, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies the tool should be used when renaming a folder, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus create_folder/delete_folder, no mention of any constraints or prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. This is minimal implied usage rather than real guidance.

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