notebook_rename

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Rename' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, if the change is reversible, what happens to the old title, or any rate limits. It lacks critical context for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage (compensated by description), and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral details for a mutation tool, leaving gaps in permissions, effects, and error handling.

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 description explicitly lists both parameters (notebook_id and new_title) with brief explanations, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. Since schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema properties), this compensates well by clarifying what each parameter represents, though it doesn't provide format details like UUID structure or title constraints.

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 the verb 'rename' and the resource 'notebook', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like notebook_create, notebook_delete, and notebook_describe by focusing specifically on renaming. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., notebook_add_text could be seen as modifying content).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing notebook), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like notebook_describe (which might retrieve metadata) or notebook_create (which creates new notebooks). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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