rename

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

Well beyond the annotations: it discloses that inbound links, outbound links, and §6.2 paths are rewritten while the bundle's own `/` links survive, and that the index follows. Adding that `apply=False` only shows a plan and diff gives the agent a safe preview path for a tool annotated destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. Missing: what happens if `to` already exists.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the operation and then the side effects. The §-numbered references are domain jargon that assumes internal docs, which costs a little readability but no wasted sentences.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with three undocumented-in-schema parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation, the dry-run escape hatch, all parameter meanings, and the link-rewriting consequences. An agent has what it needs to call this correctly and cautiously.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: `bundle` is defaulted to the current location, `to` is a path in the knowledgebase, and `apply=False` previews the plan and diff. It does not spell out the required-vs-optional split or the path format, so a small gap remains.

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 and resource: 'Rename or move a bundle within the knowledgebase'. An agent immediately knows the operation. However, a sibling tool named `move` exists and the description never distinguishes the two, leaving real ambiguity about which to pick.

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?

Implies usage conditions through the `apply=False` dry-run note and the 'default: where the user is' bundle default, which tells the agent to omit `bundle` when operating in place. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs `move`, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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