lipi_rename_note

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that a 409 path_taken is returned when the target path exists, which signals non-overwriting behavior. But it does not mention success response, whether the id remains stable, or whether the move affects references or permissions.

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?

One concise sentence communicates the core action and a key error behavior without wasted words. The critical operational fact is front-loaded and the 409 detail is valuable.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essentials: what it does and one major error case. It stops short of describing the success return value or any preconditions, leaving moderate ambiguity for an agent invoking it.

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 schema already explains both parameters. The description adds the rename/move context and the 409 error condition, which gives some meaning, but does not materially expand parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 states a specific operation ('Rename/move a note to a new path') with a clear resource and outcome. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lipi_update_note, which targets content, and lipi_delete_note, which removes notes.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a note's path needs to change. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the boundary against update_note and create_note.

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