rename_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is MUTATING, pre-checks for same-name conflicts, and returns new path/old_name/new_name. However, it does not mention failure behavior or any side effects beyond the rename.

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 at two sentences, with the core verb front-loaded. However, it includes some internal jargon like 'add-node-parameter-vex-tools' and 'apply_response_cap' that may be unclear to the agent.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context (conflict precheck, return values) but omits parameter semantics, prerequisites, and error handling. This makes it incomplete for an AI agent to invoke confidently.

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 schema has 3 required parameters (ctx, path, new_name) with no descriptions. The description does not explain any of these parameters, leaving their meaning to be inferred from names. With 0% schema coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 states '重命名节点' (rename node), a specific verb+resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like move_node by focusing on the name change. The mention of MUTATING further clarifies its intent.

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 the tool is used for renaming a node, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as move_node or set_parameters. There are no exclusions or prerequisites provided.

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