panelica_file_manager_patch_v1_files_rename

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, so 'Mutating: changes server state' largely restates existing information. However, the description adds the required files:write scope and HTTP method, which are useful context not present in annotations or schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by concise HTTP, category, and scope metadata. Each line contributes useful information, though the mutating line is somewhat redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 simple rename operation with a single nested body object, the description and schema together are mostly sufficient to build a request. However, new_name semantics are not explained, and there is no note about extension handling, path behavior, or expected response, leaving minor gaps.

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 reported as 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter details. The schema provides descriptions for body, user_id, and path, but new_name has an empty description, leaving some ambiguity that the tool description does not resolve.

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 opens with 'Rename file or folder', a clear verb and resource that directly states what the tool does. It distinguishes the operation from sibling file manager tools by naming the specific action, though it does not explicitly reference those siblings.

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 on when to use rename versus move, copy, or other file operations, nor any exclusions. The description only provides API metadata like HTTP method, category, and required scopes, which describe invocation rather than decision context.

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