vault_rename

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral details. It explicitly mentions that all [[backlinks]] in other notes are rewritten automatically, which is a side-effect not derivable from the schema. This adds meaningful transparency, though it could also mention failure modes or reversible nature, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a terse Args list. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the key behavioral note, and finally lists parameters. No wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 simplicity (2 required parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, primary side-effect, and parameter semantics. It could add details about error handling (e.g., if old_path doesn't exist) but is otherwise complete for basic usage.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It does so with a simple 'Args' section defining 'old_path' as 'Current note path' and 'new_path' as 'New note path.' This adds basic meaning beyond parameter names but lacks constraints, format, or examples, making it sufficient but not rich.

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 'Rename or move a note' with a specific verb and resource. It also highlights the key behavior of rewriting backlinks, distinguishing it from sibling tools like vault_write and vault_edit. This unambiguous purpose makes selecting the tool straightforward.

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 implies usage for renaming or moving notes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions (e.g., when not to use) or compare with vault_edit or vault_write. The guidance is limited to the tool's obvious purpose, earning a mid-range score.

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