rename-mailbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It warns that the tool 'renames a real folder in the mail account' and stresses case-sensitivity and confirming oldName matches exactly. It also mentions the return value (a confirmation). However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like whether existing links break or if the operation is reversible, which prevents a higher score.

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 and well-structured with labeled sections: 'Use when', 'Returns', 'Do not use when', and 'Safety'. Each sentence serves a purpose without redundancy, front-loading the primary action.

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 3-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, safety, and return value. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases (e.g., if the mailbox doesn't exist), but given the output schema exists and the operation is straightforward, it is fairly 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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It explains oldName and newName contextually (renaming from old to new) and notes case-sensitivity, adding value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't clarify the 'account' parameter's role or whether it's required, and it doesn't elaborate on format or constraints. Partial compensation but not thorough.

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 tool's purpose: 'renaming an existing mailbox/folder from oldName to newName within an account.' It uses a specific verb (rename) and resource (mailbox/folder), and distinguishes from create-mailbox and delete-mailbox by explicitly naming those 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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use when: renaming...' and 'Do not use when: creating a new folder (use create-mailbox) or deleting one (use delete-mailbox).' It also recommends verifying the current name with list-mailboxes, which is practical context.

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