Renomear fonte

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known, but the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether partial-title matches can rename the wrong source, whether titles must be unique within the notebook, or what is returned on success.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no waste, though its brevity leaves little room for the operational context an agent would need.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about ambiguity handling for partial titles, whether the source's other properties (citations, indices) survive the rename, and what the call returns.

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 67%; the schema explains that 'fonte' accepts the current title, a partial title, or an id, and that 'notebook' accepts an id, URL, or partial title. The description only implies that 'novo_nome' is the replacement title and adds no details on the partial-match or length constraints already in the schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource pair ("Muda o nome de uma fonte do notebook"), which pinpoints the rename operation on a notebook source rather than on the notebook itself. This implicitly separates it from notebook_renomear and notebook_estudio_renomear, though it never names those siblings 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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus notebook_renomear, notebook_estudio_renomear, or notebook_fonte_remover, and states no prerequisites such as needing the source to already exist or confirming an ambiguous partial-title match.

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