drive_rename

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

The description adds 'Requires authentication,' which is not in the annotations (only destructiveHint: false). It also discloses that the operation is in-place and cheaper than drive_move. However, it does not mention potential conflict behavior or error conditions; the sparse annotation means the description carries more burden, but the added context is still valuable.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, cost/equivalence, and explicit usage direction. It is front-loaded, concise, and free of redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter rename tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, authentication, equivalence, and usage boundaries. It could mention what happens on overwrite or error, but the level of detail is adequate for a low-complexity tool.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description reinforces that newName is just the name and path is absolute, but it doesn't add semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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?

The description states exactly what the tool does: 'Rename a file or folder in place on Proton Drive, without moving it to a different parent folder.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates from drive_move by clarifying the in-place constraint and equivalency.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Do not use to relocate to a different folder — use drive_move for that (or when unsure which applies).' It also explains when this tool is preferable ('cheaper — one CLI call'), giving the agent explicit decision criteria.

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