remarkable_rename

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It explains the core behavior: 'Changes the display name of a document or folder by updating its metadata.' It also details the defer_restart parameter's effect: 'Skip the xochitl restart so a batch of writes can refresh once via remarkable_refresh() instead of once per write. Sets refresh_pending: true. Ignored in cloud mode.' No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with dedicated sections (usecase, instructions, parameters, examples) and is front-loaded with the purpose. It is about 150 words, which is appropriate for the complexity. Minor room for trimming, but it's efficient and clear.

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's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, parameters, usage prerequisites, mode restrictions, and examples. It does not mention error handling or return values, but the presence of an output schema likely covers those. The description is complete enough for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden. The <parameters> section explains each parameter: document (current name or path), new_name (new display name), and defer_restart (SSH only, restart behavior, ignored in cloud mode). This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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: 'Rename a document or folder on the reMarkable tablet.' It uses a specific verb (rename) and resource (document or folder), and the context of sibling tools like remarkable_move, remarkable_delete, and remarkable_upload makes it easy to distinguish from alternatives.

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 helpful usage guidance: 'Find the document name with remarkable_browse() first' and explains mode availability ('Works in cloud and SSH modes... Not available over the USB web interface'). It also describes the defer_restart parameter for batch operations. It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to decide appropriately.

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