files_rename

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

Annotations already declare the mutation as destructive, so the description focuses on consequences: optimistic concurrency via expected_modified returning "conflict" if the file changed, "exists" when the target name is taken, and the notable side effect that open SQL Editor tabs follow the rename. What remains unstated is whether the rename is atomic or how it behaves if the item is open/locked elsewhere.

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 action and scope are front-loaded in one sentence, then parameters are handled in a compact, scannable inline list. The backtick-parameter style is dense but not padded; no sentence is redundant. Formatting is slightly idiosyncratic for a description field but stays readable.

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 destructive four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers inputs, the concurrency guard, both named failure flags, and a downstream side effect on editor tabs. Remaining gaps are minor: no note on permissions/authorization or on what an agent should do after receiving "conflict" (re-list and retry).

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 carries the full burden and does: path is the full path with a validity constraint, new_name is a plain name with an extension-preservation rule, kind enumerates "sql" (.sql/.sas) and "notebook" (.ipynb), and expected_modified is the previously listed modified time with its failure mode. Every parameter gains meaning beyond the bare type declarations.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Rename a file or folder") plus scope ("on this computer in its folder") and anchors it to the UI action the user means ("the file browser's Rename"). The kind restriction (only .sql/.sas and .ipynb) further narrows it, so an agent can distinguish it from tab-level or remote-file renames without opening the schema.

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?

It scopes the tool to paths within folders the browser may use and explicitly excludes roots and shortcut folders, which is real when-not guidance. It also states the only file kinds touched. It never names the alternative tools (e.g. viya_files_rename, sql_editor_tab_rename), so the choice between them is left to inference from scope wording.

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