rename_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Rename' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, whether the rename is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., breaking references), or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 'Rename a document' is extremely concise—a single, direct phrase with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., returns the updated document) or failure (e.g., error if document doesn't exist), nor does it cover behavioral traits like idempotency or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for agent decision-making.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'documentId' (UUID) and 'newTitle' (new title). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Rename a document' clearly states the verb ('rename') and resource ('document'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a document in this system and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'move_document' or 'write_document', which might also involve document modifications.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing document), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or deleting documents), or comparisons to siblings like 'move_document' (which might handle relocation with renaming). This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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