document_rename_path

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

The description mentions that the tool preserves all operations and configuration, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors such as whether the old path must exist, the new path must not exist, any authorization requirements, or side effects beyond preservation. With no annotations, this is insufficient for full transparency.

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 a single sentence of 8 words, front-loading the purpose and key behavioral trait. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 simple rename operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks coverage of edge cases (e.g., behavior when oldPath does not exist or newPath already exists) and return value. It does not fully compensate for the missing output schema, but given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally acceptable.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., examples in the schema are sufficient). Thus, no extra value is contributed.

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 specifies the action (rename) and the resource (path), and distinguishes it from siblings like document_add_path and document_remove_path. The additional detail 'preserving all operations and configuration' further clarifies the scope of the operation.

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 that the tool is used for renaming a path, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as document_move_operation for moving operations, or when not to use it (e.g., if the new path already exists).

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