ds_rename_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It excellently warns that rename may be implemented as delete+recreate, changes resource_id, and can invalidate workflow references. It does not mention permissions or return behavior, but the most critical destructive side effect is clearly highlighted.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical warning and an Args list. Every sentence earns its place; the Args list somewhat duplicates the schema but includes valuable constraints, so it is not wasteful.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough context for safe usage: what the tool does, the key risk, and parameter constraints. It lacks details on return values, error behavior, and permissions, but the essential operational context is covered for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for new_name ('filename or folder name only, no path prefix') and resource_type ('FILE or UDF'), which is helpful. However, resource_id and description are only listed by name without further elaboration, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 'Rename a resource file or folder' using a specific verb and resource type. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ds_rename_project by specifying 'resource', and the warning about resource_id changes adds further operational scoping.

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 tool's context is clear: it is for renaming a resource file or folder. The warning to check references with ds_list_workflows before proceeding provides a concrete precondition. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for other resource operations.

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