docshelf_rename_document

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds detailed behavioral context: it moves files, changes slugs, regenerates INDEX.md, and refuses to overwrite existing targets. This goes beyond the annotations to give a clear picture of side effects and safety mechanisms.

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 concise, with a clear summary in the first sentence. Each additional sentence provides necessary details like required parameters, conflict handling, dry-run, and ownership of git step. No wasted words.

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 the destructiveHint annotation and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, constraints, and prerequisites. It explains side effects, dry-run capability, and the caller's responsibility for git commits, making it complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 already has detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds value by explaining the relationship between new_title and slug changes, and new_category and directory moves, but this is more behavioral than semantic. Given high schema coverage, a baseline 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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Retitle, recategorize, or re-describe a document — no re-conversion.' It explicitly states the tool's primary purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like docshelf_add_document (adding) and docshelf_remove_document (removing).

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 tells the agent which parameters are at least one required ('Give at least one of new_title / new_category / new_description'), explains behavior on conflict ('Refuses to clobber'), and provides a dry-run option. It also mentions post-invocation steps. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like docshelf_read_document.

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