重命名文件夹

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), not destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds the basic behavior of renaming a folder and mentions a successful return, but no additional behavioral context such as effects on contents or failure cases. It does not contradict annotations.

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 structured with a clear purpose, a parameter list, and a return note. However, the parameter list largely duplicates the schema, and the return statement '成功返回操作结果' is vague, slightly limiting the efficiency of the text.

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 tool is simple (rename folder, few parameters), annotations provide safety context, and the schema fully documents parameters. The description covers the core operation and basic return behavior. It lacks usage guidance and detailed error/response semantics, but the tool's low complexity makes this acceptable.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including folderId and folderName. The description repeats these definitions without adding extra meaning, and it omits the response_format parameter entirely. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 '重命名云盘中的文件夹' (rename folders in cloud drive), providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like classin_rename_file and classin_create_folder/delete_folder.

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 usage solely from the rename operation and sibling names, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Usage is implied by the operation itself, meeting the 'implied usage' benchmark.

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