重命名对象

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the target is not overwritten — but omits what actually happens on a name collision (error vs. silent failure), permission requirements, and whether directories can be renamed.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scope constraint and the non-overwrite clause front-loaded, no filler. It is arguably lean to the point of under-specifying, but nothing is wasted.

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 no explanation. Still, for a mutation tool flagged destructive, the description leaves collision behavior, applicable object types, and permissions unstated, making it minimally viable rather than complete.

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 100%, so path, server and new_name are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (rename) plus the resource (an object) and constrains the scope to the same virtual remote directory, which implicitly separates it from the sibling `move`. It does not name siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer that cross-directory relocation belongs to `move`.

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 scope phrase '在同一虚拟远程目录内' implies when this tool is appropriate versus `move`, and the non-overwrite clause hints at a precondition. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not guidance or prerequisite (e.g., target must not exist) is stated.

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