rename-mailbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation renames a real folder, warns about case-sensitive exact match for oldName, and mentions return value. However, it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or side effects on messages inside the folder, but the safety warning adds value.

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, using bullet-like phrases ('Use when:', 'Returns:', 'Do not use when:', 'Safety:'). It front-loads the key purpose and contains no unnecessary words, earning its place.

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 simple operation (rename mailbox) with 3 parameters and no nested objects, the description covers when to use, how to use (case-sensitive match), return value, and alternatives. It could mention error handling or prerequisites, but is largely complete for this tool.

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 low (33% - only account described). The description clarifies the roles of oldName and newName by framing the rename action, but does not explain the account parameter. It adds partial meaning but does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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: renaming an existing mailbox/folder. It specifies the verb 'rename' and the resource 'mailbox/folder', and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning create-mailbox and delete-mailbox as alternative tools.

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 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, including alternative tools (create-mailbox, delete-mailbox) and a recommendation to use list-mailboxes to confirm the current name. This helps the agent choose correctly.

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