rename_attachment

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

The description discloses partial-update behavior ('Only the args you pass change; the rest is re-sent as-is'), which is valuable beyond the idempotentHint annotation. It also enumerates allowed type values. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 two focused sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and enumerates fields, the second clarifies update semantics. It is front-loaded and information-dense.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, allowed values, partial-update semantics, and where to find IDs. It does not explain return values or potential side effects (e.g., setting primary), but it is adequate for typical use.

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 compensates by explaining title, doc_type (including allowed values), and primary. It also directs users to list_attachments for identifier/attachment_id. However, the precise distinction between `identifier` and `attachment_id` is left implicit.

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 clearly identifies the verb ('Update') and the resource ('attachment'), and specifies the exact mutable fields: title, type, and primary flag. This distinguishes it from related siblings like delete_attachment, get_attachment, and list_attachments.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use this tool: when modifying an existing attachment's metadata. It also provides a helpful pointer to list_attachments for obtaining IDs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like attach_document or delete_attachment, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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