rename_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is to add context — which it does via the mandatory preview/consent workflow and the token gate. It still doesn't state reversibility or what happens on a partial failure, leaving a small gap.

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 mutation and its prerequisite are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the precise gating instruction and short user-utterance examples. No sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description fully covers the risky part of the call — the preview/consent/token contract. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly further by framing the target as either a series (optionally narrowed to one season) or a movie, implying the movie/series choice is exclusive — a relationship the schema itself never states. The token's conditional requirement is repeated from the schema rather than newly added.

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 (rename) and resource scope (files of a series/season or a movie) plus the target (current naming settings). The sibling preview_rename is implicitly distinguished by the staged workflow, so an agent can tell which one mutates.

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?

Explicit sequencing: call preview_rename first, show it to the user, and only invoke this after agreement with the confirmation_token. It also states the token is required for more than one file, so the when/when-not condition is fully specified.

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