sftp_renomear

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it enforces per-profile write roots and it never overwrites, failing outright if the destination exists. That failure semantics is exactly what an agent needs before calling. It stops short of saying whether the source is left intact on failure or what an error looks like.

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, the primary action first and the safety constraint second. Nothing is padded and every clause carries information.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description covers the critical behavioral risk (no overwrite, write-root enforcement) but leaves the parameter contract and the failure/return shape unexplained. Adequate to avoid a wrong write, not adequate to call it correctly on the first try.

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 all three parameters (perfil, origem, destino) are bare strings with no enum or description. The description only indirectly hints at 'perfil' via the raizes_escrita remark and implies origem/destino through the rename wording; it never explains that perfil selects the server connection or what path format origem/destino expect.

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 pair (rename or move) and the resource (file or folder), which clearly separates it from siblings like sftp_enviar, sftp_criar_pasta and sftp_baixar. It does not name an alternative tool, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the semantics of rename/move and by the constraint that it respects raizes_escrita when the profile has them. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement nor a pointer to a sibling for the copy case (sftp_enviar), so the agent must infer routing.

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