rename_file

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

The annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a mutation operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this by specifying that new_name is 'not a full path, just the name' and mentioning the return format. However, it doesn't cover potential error conditions, permissions needed, or system-specific constraints.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. The 'Use instead of terminal' phrase could be slightly more integrated, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the destructiveHint annotation, 2 parameters with full semantic coverage in the description, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is quite complete. It could be improved by mentioning error cases or prerequisites, but it covers the essential context well.

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 fully compensates by clearly explaining both parameters: 'path' as 'Path to the file or folder to rename' and 'new_name' as 'New name for the file or folder (not a full path, just the name)'. This adds crucial semantic information not present in the schema.

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 the specific action ('Rename a file or folder') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'move_dir' (which likely changes location) and 'remove_file' (which deletes). The opening phrase 'Use instead of terminal' provides additional context about its role.

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 explicitly states 'Use instead of terminal' and distinguishes this tool from command-line alternatives. It also implicitly differentiates from siblings by focusing on renaming (vs. creating, moving, or removing files/folders), though it doesn't name specific alternatives.

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