rename_document

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the safe rename sequence: content is re-created under the new name, the original is deleted only afterward, and local backups are made first. It also discloses overwrite behavior and instructs relaying warnings verbatim. This gives the agent a strong mental model of side effects.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core operation, then explains safety behavior, overwrite behavior, and warning handling in logical order. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description is nearly complete for this tool: it covers how to identify the document, overwrite behavior, backup safety, and warning handling. The main gaps are no explicit mention of the project_id parameter's role and no detail about the success-return shape beyond warnings, both of which are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the bare parameter names. It adds useful meaning for 'document' (uuid or unambiguous file name) and 'overwrite' (replaces existing holder after backup), and implicitly defines 'new_file_name'. However, it does not explain 'project_id' or any file-name format constraints, leaving some parameter semantics to inference.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rename a document'. It also clarifies the identifier forms ('by uuid or by an unambiguous file name'), making the operation unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_document, write_document, and delete_document.

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 clear operating context: when the new name is already in use, overwrite=true is required, and it explicitly says refusal happens otherwise. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the rename purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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