rename

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and nothing is contradicted. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema, such as what happens if the new name already exists, whether folders are renamed recursively, or whether the file must be closed/unlocked.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the parameter constraint follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple two-parameter mutation the description is nearly sufficient, with only collision/overwrite semantics left unaddressed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains that 'path' is the full current path and that 'new_name' is the name only, not a full path. This directly compensates for the two undocumented schema properties.

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 verb and resource ('Rename a file or folder'), which is clear and unambiguous. It does not name siblings, but the note that new_name must be 'just the name, not a full path' implicitly distinguishes it from move_files/copy_files, which take destination paths.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'just the name, not a full path' constraint hints at when to use rename versus move_files, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool or when not to. No prerequisites, permissions, or alternative routing are given.

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