rename_document

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing the rename mechanism: content is re-created under the new name before deletion, local backups are made first, and overwrite is refused unless explicitly requested (with backup for the replaced holder). This provides a transparent view of the tool's effects and safety properties, aligning with the annotation's non-destructive intent.

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 concise and each sentence adds meaningful detail: the first defines the action and identifier, the second explains the safe rename execution, and the third addresses collision handling. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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 has four parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the core semantics for document, overwrite, and new_file_name, leaving only project_id as assumed context. The rename behavior, including backups and overwrite refusal, is fully disclosed, making the tool well-specified for an agent.

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 zero schema description coverage, the description supplies essential parameter context. It explains that 'document' can be a uuid or unambiguous filename, clarifies the semantics of 'overwrite' (refused by default, replaces existing holder when true), and implicitly defines 'new_file_name' as the target name. Only 'project_id' remains unelaborated, but it is a common context parameter.

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 immediately states the tool's core action—'Rename a document'—and clarifies the acceptable identifier forms ('by uuid or by an unambiguous file name'). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_document or delete_document, which serve different purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it (e.g., use write_document to edit content rather than rename), nor any reference to alternative tools. The description does explain the overwrite behavior but that is a parameter constraint, not a usage directive.

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