studio_rename

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses routing by resolved type (note vs. artifact), the get-then-update mechanism for notes, the artifact rename RPC for all artifact types, the mind-map special case, and the exact return fields (item_id, type, new_title, is_mind_map). This is highly detailed and goes well beyond minimal safety hints.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, parameter semantics, routing logic, and return values. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 complexity (mixed note/artifact types, routing by type, mind-map special case), the description is complete. It covers all three parameters, the resolution rule, the different backing types, and the return values. The presence of an output schema does not create gaps because the description already explains the output shape.

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 must compensate. It does so thoroughly: notebook is described as accepting a name or ID, item is described as a name-or-id ref resolved over the merged notes+artifacts list, and new_title is clarified by the 'title only' constraint. The routing logic further explains how the item parameter is interpreted.

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 a Studio item (title only) — a text note OR an artifact,' which clearly identifies the verb (rename), the resource (Studio item), and the scope (title only). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like studio_delete and studio_list by focusing specifically on the rename operation.

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 explains when to use the tool (renaming any Studio item regardless of its backing type) and references studio_delete for the ref resolution pattern, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for similar operations. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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