rename_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether renaming affects references, whether the operation is reversible, whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens if the new name conflicts with an existing node. The description only restates the action without behavioral 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 very short and front-loaded with the action, but the Args section is redundant with the schema and adds no new information. It is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, naming constraints, or side effects. An agent would have to guess at the behavior beyond the basic action.

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 lists parameter names ('node_path', 'new_name') but adds no meaning beyond the schema: no format, no examples, no constraints (e.g., valid name characters, path syntax). The description adds minimal value over the input schema.

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 a clear verb and resource ('Rename a node') and lists the two required parameters. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like move_node, copy_node, or delete_node, and the description is essentially a restatement of the tool name with parameter names.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., node must exist), constraints (e.g., naming rules), or when a different tool like move_node or set_node_flags would be more appropriate.

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