rename_note

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that [[wikilinks]] follow automatically, which is a key side-effect. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the note's path beyond the rename.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the important side-effect is presented in a clear parenthetical. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool, the description is serviceable and an output schema exists. However, without annotations or parameter documentation, the agent must rely on inference for parameter meaning and invocation context, making it only minimally complete.

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% and the description does not explain the two required parameters. 'path' and 'title' are somewhat inferable, but the description does not explicitly state that path identifies the note to rename and title is the new title.

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 uses a specific verb ('Renomme') and a clear resource ('une note'), so an agent can tell it is a rename operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like move_note or duplicate_note, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when rename_note is appropriate relative to other note-manipulation siblings.

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