Renomear notebook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is mostly carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say what happens when the partial title matches multiple notebooks, whether the change is reversible, or what the response contains — meaningful gaps for a mutation with openWorldHint=true.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing behavioral detail rather than a virtue in itself.

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 (2 required params, flat schema, full coverage, annotations present), so a minimal description is defensible. Still, with no output schema, the description should mention the return shape and how ambiguous partial-title lookups are resolved, neither of which it does.

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%, with both 'titulo' (new title, 1-200 chars) and 'notebook' (id, URL, or partial title) fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's reference to 'título' maps to the schema but adds no resolution or ambiguity guidance beyond it.

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 ('Muda o título de um notebook'), so an agent can tell it renames a notebook rather than creating or deleting one. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close sibling notebook_estudio_renomear (which renames a studio artifact) or clarify that it targets the notebook container itself, not a source or note.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions alternatives such as notebook_fonte_renomear or notebook_estudio_renomear. An agent must infer the correct scope from the tool name alone.

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