overleaf_rename_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds a useful behavioral constraint (folder stays unchanged) and implies a mutation, but it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or effects on references after a rename.

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?

Two tightly scoped sentences start with the action and immediately state the key limitation. No filler.

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 small 3-parameter rename operation this is mostly complete: it names the prerequisite and the non-supported move scenario. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but there is no output schema and the operation is simple.

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?

All three parameters are already documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight value by emphasizing that old_path must be the exact path obtained from listing files.

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 precise operation ('Rename an existing project file') with an explicit scope qualifier ('without changing folders'). This clearly distinguishes it from create/delete/upload siblings and tells the agent exactly what resource it acts on.

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 an explicit preparatory step: 'List files first to obtain the exact old_path,' and states the tool's limit: 'this cannot move a file between folders.' It lacks a named sibling alternative for moving files, but no move tool exists among the siblings.

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