rename_page

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

Annotations already indicate not read-only and not destructive. The description adds only the return format. No additional behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or error conditions is provided.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) with no wasted words. However, it lacks detail that could be added without significant length increase, so it is not a 5.

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 simple rename operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and return value. It omits edge cases, failure modes, and contextual cues about effects on other parts of the document, but is minimally adequate.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Rename a page by id', specifying the verb (rename), resource (page), and identifier (id). It also mentions the return value, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like rename_node or rename_variable.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it point to sibling tools like rename_node for other node types.

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