rename_folder

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. Beyond that, the description discloses the name format constraint ('must not contain "/" or "\"') and explains why the numeric id is necessary (API cannot list folders). This adds behavioral context beyond the idempotency hint.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose and key parameters, second clarifies the name constraint, third explains the id sourcing limitation. No fluff, front-loaded with essential information. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 description covers parameter constraints and a critical API limitation. However, it does not mention the return value or success/error behavior. Given no output schema, a brief note on expected output would improve completeness. Still, it provides enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces the name parameter's constraint ('single folder segment, NOT a path') and adds critical context about the folderId's origin ('as returned by create_folder'). This extra context goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses specific verb-resource pairing ('Rename an existing Zephyr Scale folder') and clearly identifies the required identifier ('numeric id'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting the dependency on create_folder, which is the only way to obtain the id.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite: 'keep the numeric id returned by create_folder — rename_folder needs it (otherwise the id can only be found in the Jira UI).' This guides the agent on when to use this tool (after creation) and provides a critical constraint. Though alternatives are not listed, no sibling tool performs renaming, so no exclusion is needed.

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