authoring-rename-item

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description adds real behavioral context by explaining that the item keeps its ID (so links survive) while its path and URL-derived name change. This helps the agent reason about side effects beyond the flat annotation hints.

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?

Three tight sentences, none wasted; the core action is front-loaded and the consequence follows. Structure is clean and skimmable.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical rename semantics and the id/path constraint, while annotations carry the safety profile. Missing only secondary details like permission requirements, which are minor here.

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 id, path, newName, and database are already documented. The description adds the mutual-exclusivity rule for id/path, which reinforces rather than exceeds the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Renames a Sitecore item') and clarifies the outcome that distinguishes it from sibling mutations: the ID is preserved while the path and derived URL change. It does not explicitly name move/copy/update alternatives, but the semantic framing makes the distinction clear.

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?

Gives a concrete usage rule ('Supply exactly one of id or path'), which is genuinely actionable. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose rename over siblings like authoring-move-item or authoring-update-item, leaving the selection context implied.

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