rename

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the operation is confined to the current parent, and name collisions are refused rather than overwritten — which materially reframes what "destructive" means here. It stops short of saying what permissions are needed or whether the rename is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the single most decision-relevant caveat. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the definition leaves the two parameters and the permission/error model under-specified.

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 0% and neither parameter is named or explained. The description never says whether "path" is an absolute path, a relative path, or an ID, nor what characters are legal in "new_name"; "existing target names are refused" only indirectly hints at new_name collision behavior.

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 ("Rename a Netdisk file/folder") plus a scope qualifier ("within its current parent") that implicitly separates it from the move and copy siblings. An agent can tell what this does and what it does not do without opening the schema.

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 clause "within its current parent" implies the boundary against move, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use guidance. The refusal rule for existing names is a constraint, not usage routing, so the agent must infer that move should be used for cross-parent relocation.

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