notebook_rename

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the action of renaming, which is also apparent from the tool name. It does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions, or error conditions. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of safety disclosure, and it fails to do so.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and key parameter behavior.

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 tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema (which presumably documents return values), the description covers the essential usage. It states the action and the acceptable input format. However, it lacks context about error cases or whether the notebook must exist, but for a simple rename operation, it is reasonably complete.

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 description partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage by clarifying that the 'notebook' parameter accepts a name or ID. However, it provides no additional meaning for 'new_title', leaving that to be inferred from the name. It adds value for one parameter but not the other.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Rename a notebook.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notebook_create, notebook_delete, and notebook_describe. It also adds useful detail that it accepts a notebook name or ID, further clarifying its purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like source_rename or studio_rename. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context. The only hint is the tool name itself and the generic action, which is insufficient for an agent to decide between rename tools.

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