rename_heading

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action (rename heading text) and preservation of level, but fails to mention key behaviors: whether it renames only the first occurrence or all, error handling for missing headings, or if the modification is destructive (permanent change).

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 overly concise—one sentence that omits necessary detail. While brevity is valued, it fails to earn its place by not covering parameter usage or behavioral context, making it underspecified.

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 lack of output schema, three undocumented parameters, and no behavioral context, the description is woefully incomplete. The agent cannot safely invoke this tool without guessing behavior for edge cases like missing headings or multiple matches.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the three parameters (path, oldHeading, newHeading). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema's property names imply, leaving the agent to guess format or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('rename') and resource ('heading's text in a vault file'), and adds the crucial constraint 'preserving its level.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'rename_vault_file' (renames the whole file) or 'search_and_replace' (generic text replacement).

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 such as 'search_and_replace' or 'append_to_vault_file'. Given the diverse sibling list, explicit context on usage scenarios is missing.

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