rename_file

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint beyond that: it refuses to overwrite an existing file. However, it omits what error/return occurs on refusal and any permission or path-scope requirements, so the added value is modest.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the primary action stated first and the key constraint second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing for a mutation tool is clarification of the new_name parameter format and the failure mode when the target exists, leaving the definition minimally adequate.

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 only 50% — 'file' is documented as 'Existing file name' but 'new_name' has no description at all. The description adds nothing about whether new_name is a bare name, a path, or whether extensions are required, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Rename a GEDCOM file'), making it immediately distinguishable from siblings like create_file, list_files, and file_summary. No ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as create_file (copy-then-delete) or how to handle conflicts. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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