postit.rename

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and the 'same dir' constraint, omitting crucial details such as error handling (e.g., what if the postit does not exist), whether the operation overwrites an existing name, permission requirements, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutating tool with zero annotation context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence without redundancy, which is efficient. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, missing useful parameter or behavioral context that would aid the agent. It earns its place but could be enriched without becoming verbose.

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 tool has three parameters, no annotations, and only an output schema (which helps with return values), the description covers the core operation but leaves out parameter semantics, possible error conditions, and the exact implications of 'same dir'. The description alone is insufficient for a fully informed invocation in a complex context.

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 must compensate. It references 'same dir' which loosely maps to the 'dir' parameter, but it does not explain the optional/default behavior of 'dir' nor clarify the roles of 'name' and 'new_name' beyond what their names imply. The lack of explicit parameter details leaves room for ambiguity.

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 action ('Rename') and resource ('a postit') and adds a scope constraint ('within the same dir'), which distinguishes it from siblings like postit.create, postit.delete, or postit.update_body. The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: to rename a postit while keeping it in the same directory. The 'same dir' clause sets a clear limitation, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, such as for moving between directories. Without explicit exclusions, it falls short of a 5.

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