viya_files_rename

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=true annotations: it discloses optimistic-concurrency behavior (ETag sent as If-Match), that concurrent changes surface as 'conflict', that a modified-time mismatch against expected_modified also conflicts, which folders are refused, and the side effect that open SQL Editor tabs follow the rename. What is missing is what happens on a name collision with an existing item, and any permission/authorization requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, then details in a compact second paragraph; nothing is redundant. Minor cost: the odd double-backtick quoting and the dense run-on after the colon make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the risky parts: concurrency conflicts, refused locations, and the cross-tool side effect on SQL Editor tabs. Remaining gaps (behavior when the target name already exists, whether the rename is reversible, what a successful call returns) are modest but real.

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 carry the burden. It does explain two of four parameters well: location is described as 'content' or 'server' (the active connection) and expected_modified is tied to the conflict condition. path and new_name remain only inferable from 'in its folder'; path format (absolute vs folder-relative) and new_name rules are left unstated.

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 specific verb and resource (rename a file or folder) plus scope (on SAS Viya, in its folder, active connection is 'content' or 'server'). It is clear enough to distinguish from viya_files_mkdir and viya_files_delete by intent, though it never explicitly says how it differs from the sibling files_rename that also exists in the tool list.

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 useful negative guidance (top-level folders, My Folder, home and lockdown folders and their ancestors are refused) and implies usage for renaming within a folder. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites such as the connection needing to be active, and no routing away from files_rename or viya_files_delete.

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