vault_rename

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect — links are updated — which an agent could not guess from the schema. However, it says nothing about collision behavior (what happens if new_name already exists), permissions, or whether link rewriting spans the whole vault.

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?

Two short sentences with the behavior front-loaded and the parameters after; no filler. The telegraphic 'source:' / 'new_name:' labeling is efficient, though slightly clipped for a tool that mutates link structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the link-update behavior is the key non-obvious fact. Still missing for a mutation tool with zero annotations: overwrite/collision semantics and failure conditions, which an agent needs before invoking a rename.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it partly does: 'new_name: new file name, without folder' usefully clarifies that a bare name, not a path, is expected. But 'source: file path' is thin — it never says whether the path is vault-relative or absolute, which matters for a vault tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rename a file') plus a scoping constraint ('in place (same folder)') and a side effect ('updating links'). The '(same folder)' qualifier implicitly separates it from vault_move_file, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'in place (same folder)' phrase implies when this is appropriate versus a move, but the description never names vault_move_file or states the exclusion directly. An agent must infer the routing rule from the parenthetical alone.

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