rename_file

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

With destructiveHint=true already in annotations, the description adds value by specifying the scope ('regular file'), the constraint 'The new name must not already exist,' and the same-directory limitation. These are behavioral details beyond the annotation flags, giving the agent a concrete precondition. It does not contradict the annotations, and the additional disclosure is meaningful without being exhaustive.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant phrases. It front-loads the main action and constraint immediately, and every word contributes either to the operation, its scope, or its preconditions.

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 two-parameter rename tool with annotations already covering the destructive profile and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the operation, scope, and no-overwrite precondition, and the schema covers parameter details. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, with both 'path' and 'new_name' already fully described in the input schema. The tool description restates the constraint about not existing and clarifies 'without moving,' but it does not materially add to parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Rename a regular file without moving it to another directory.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from move_file by explicitly scoping it to same-directory renames, and the added constraint 'The new name must not already exist' further clarifies its exact operation. No ambiguity remains about what action is performed.

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 phrase 'without moving it to another directory' provides a clear boundary that signals when not to use this tool, implying cross-directory moves belong to a different tool. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g., move_file) or state 'use move_file when moving across directories,' so it falls between clear context and fully explicit routing.

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