pcloud_rename_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool renames or moves a file, without mentioning potential side effects, permission requirements, overwrite behavior, return values, or error conditions. This lack of context for a mutating operation is a significant gap.

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 entire description is one short, direct sentence with no superfluous words or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward file operation, maximizing readability and agent comprehension.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation, the description covers the primary action and parameter intent sufficiently. However, it omits information about return values, success/failure indicators, and potential edge cases (e.g., moving to an existing path), which could matter for an agent deciding whether additional verification is needed. The absence of an output schema increases this burden.

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 for parameters is 100%, and both 'path' and 'newPath' already have concise descriptions explaining their roles. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for well-documented parameters.

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 states the verb ('Rename or move') and the resource ('a file in pCloud'), making the tool's purpose immediately evident. It also distinguishes itself from sibling folder-level tools like pcloud_rename_folder by explicitly limiting scope to files.

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 for renaming or moving a file, which is clear enough for basic selection. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., pcloud_copy_file for copying, pcloud_delete_file for removal) or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, relying on the agent to infer context.

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