rename_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that an asset is renamed. It does not mention whether the path must exist, whether the operation overwrites, what side effects occur, whether permissions are required, or how failures are reported.

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 a single, concise French sentence with no filler or redundant content. It delivers the core purpose immediately, though it is terse and omits supporting details that would improve usability.

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?

Even though the tool has only two parameters and an output schema, the description lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and behavioral caveats for a mutating operation. An agent would need to rely on convention and inference to invoke this tool reliably.

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, and the description does not explicitly explain that 'path' identifies the current asset and 'name' is the new name. These meanings are inferable from the parameter names and the rename action, but the description adds no direct clarification or 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 action ('Renomme' = rename) and the resource ('asset'), which is a distinct resource type among the sibling tools. It differentiates at the resource level from rename_note and rename_folder, though it does not explicitly contrast with related asset operations like move_asset or duplicate_asset.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as move_asset, duplicate_asset, or delete_asset. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling context.

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