Renomear arquivo ou pasta

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

Annotations carry no positive hints (readOnly=false, destructive=false), so the description bears the responsibility for disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the item stays in the same folder, content is unchanged, and Windows-invalid characters are forbidden. It stops short of covering overwrite/conflict behavior and error cases, but the main behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core action, the same-folder constraint, the naming constraints, and the user-communication protocol. The content is front-loaded and free of filler, making the instructions easy to parse and apply.

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 simple rename tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is largely complete: it covers behavior, constraints, and expected agent interaction. Minor gaps remain around return/result semantics, overwrite conflicts, and error handling, but these do not seriously hinder correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds real semantic value for novo_nome by specifying that it must be only a name without slashes or path components and must avoid Windows-invalid characters. This goes beyond the schema's brief description without contradicting it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Renomeia um arquivo ou pasta') and explicitly scopes the operation with 'mantendo-o na mesma pasta', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mover_item and copiar_item. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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?

It provides a clear context for use: renaming within the same folder, preserving content, and validating the new name. It also gives execution-level instructions (inform the user, confirm the result), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one.

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