Rename / update file metadata

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

The description richly discloses behavior: only metadata changes, content is untouched, only provided fields change, at least one field is required, folders are supported, and the return values are listed. This goes well beyond the annotations and clarifies that despite destructiveHint, the file content itself is not modified.

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: it front-loads the core purpose, then explains scope and exclusions, and ends with return values. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately lists the return fields. It also covers edge cases (folders are files), the 'content untouched' caveat, and sibling tool routing. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 each parameter. The description adds operation-level semantics by stating 'Only the provided fields change; at least one is required,' which is not otherwise explicit in the schema and helps the agent understand the required combination of optional parameters.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Renames a file and/or updates its description and starred flag — metadata only.' It also explicitly differentiates itself from related operations by noting 'content is untouched' and pointing to move_file and trash_file for other use cases, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage guidance by stating when this tool is appropriate (metadata-only updates) and when it is not: moving lives in move_file, trashing in trash_file, and uploading content is handled by upload_file. This directly helps an agent select this tool over siblings without ambiguity.

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