rename_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well on the key asymmetry: it states exactly what is mutated (inbound frontmatter wikilinks), what is NOT (inline [[wikilinks]] in prose), and where the gap is surfaced (body_references_not_updated). It does not address collision handling, irreversibility, or required permissions, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 core action and its cascade are front-loaded, the exception follows immediately, and the parenthetical explanation of why inline links are missed earns its space. No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format details are not needed, and the description covers the behavioral landmine an agent would otherwise hit. Remaining gaps are collision/failure behavior and permissions, which are minor for a two-parameter rename.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It implies id identifies the target node and new_title is the replacement, and the phrase 'rewriting ... to the new id' usefully reveals that the id is derived from the title. But it never explicitly maps either name, and the id/title wording is muddy.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Rename a node') plus the non-obvious side effect that inbound frontmatter wikilinks are rewritten. However, a sibling named update_node exists and the description never says how rename_node differs from it, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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: reach for this when the node's name/id must change rather than its other properties, and the body-link caveat hints at when results may surprise you. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to update_node as the alternative for non-rename edits.

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