rename

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context that the tool moves the item within the same directory, but it does not explain behavior on overwrite, non-existent items, permissions, or result/return values. This is a moderate gap for a rename operation, but the provided context is helpful.

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, consisting of a single purpose statement and a clear Args block with examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the tool's function. No unnecessary information is included.

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 simplicity of the tool (two required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It clearly explains the parameters and the same-directory constraint. However, it omits any mention of return values or error conditions, which would enhance completeness for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It fully explains both parameters: 'path' as the full path with an example, and 'new_name' as the new name without a path with an example. This compensates entirely for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear semantics.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Rename a file or folder'. It also adds the scope constraint 'moves it within the same directory', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'move' for cross-directory moves. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of what the tool does.

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 by stating the rename operates within the same directory, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move' or 'copy'. No clear exclusions or alternative tool references are provided. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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