kb_rename

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful side effects: the old title is retained as a search alias, and existing links remain intact. That is real value beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether the rename is reversible, or what confirmation looks like for a mutation.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the non-obvious consequences. Zero wasted text.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the two side-effect facts cover the riskiest behavior. But for a 3-parameter mutation with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, leaving node_token and reason undocumented is a real gap.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It implies a new title is supplied but never explains node_token (the target identifier) or what the optional 'reason' field is for.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: '修改页面标题' (modify page title), and adds the conceptual framing that the title IS the proposition. It's distinguishable from kb_replace_text or kb_move by focusing on the title alone, but it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance. The agent must infer that this is the tool for renaming rather than editing body content, and nothing directs it away from kb_replace_text or kb_move for adjacent edits.

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