rename

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what happens if the destination already exists, whether moving directories is supported recursively, whether the operation can overwrite files, or any permission or error considerations. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, though it could include more behavioral detail without becoming bloated.

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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It omits critical details such as overwrite behavior, success/failure return values, and whether moving directories has restrictions. An agent could invoke it based on schema alone but would lack important operational context.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented as 'Current path' and 'New path.' The description adds modest value by clarifying that the operation applies to both files and directories, but it does not add further detail about path formats or edge cases.

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 operation (rename/move) and the resource type (file or directory), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like copy_file or delete_file. It is a specific verb+resource statement, though it does not explicitly contrast with copy semantics.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as copy_file or write_file. The description merely states what the tool does; it does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or cases where another sibling should be preferred.

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