seafile_rename

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states this is a rename operation (implying mutation) and mentions the return type ('OperationResult indicating success or failure'), but lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is atomic/reversible, rate limits, or what specific failure conditions might be. It adds some context but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clearly labeled sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 mutation nature (rename), 3 parameters with full schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters with key clarification, and return type. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like permissions or error conditions, but the output schema likely handles return value documentation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by clarifying that 'new_name' is 'not a path, just the name', which provides important semantic guidance beyond the schema's basic description. This compensates well for the high schema coverage baseline.

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 specific action ('Rename a file or directory') and resource ('in Seafile'), distinguishing it from siblings like seafile_move (which changes location) or seafile_delete (which removes). It uses precise verb+resource phrasing that immediately communicates the tool's function.

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 when renaming is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like seafile_move (which could also handle name changes via path manipulation) or seafile_copy (which creates duplicates with new names). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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