rename_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return value (count of updated links) and the optionality of link updates, but does not mention consequences of setting updateLinks to false (e.g., broken links) or any required permissions. It adds some value but leaves key behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the return value. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, optional behavior, and return value. However, it omits caveats like the risk of broken links when updateLinks is false, and does not clarify whether the old path is fully replaced or if any validation occurs. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds context about wikilink updates and the returned count, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. It earns the baseline without exceeding it.

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 ('Rename') and resource ('a note'), and highlights the distinguishing feature of optionally updating wikilinks. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like move_note or update_note.

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 usage when renaming a note while maintaining link references, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., move_note for path changes without link updates). There is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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