Batch Rename Files

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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive and not read-only. The description adds valuable context beyond that by revealing that dry_run defaults to true, so the default invocation only simulates rather than mutating. This is meaningful safety behavior disclosed beyond the annotations, with no contradiction.

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 sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the rule taxonomy and then the safety default. Every clause earns its place and the most important safety behavior is saved for the closing emphasis.

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?

The rules parameter is a black box (deferred to separate schemas), and the relationship between files and the optional directory is ambiguous — it is unclear whether one must be supplied or how they interact. With no output schema and a destructive tool, a note on return format and the files-vs-directory semantics would round it out.

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 coverage is high (80%), establishing the baseline at 3. The description adds genuine value by enumerating supported rule types, which compensates for the schema's deferral of the rules parameter to 'See specific rule schemas' — this tells an agent what kinds of rule objects to construct.

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 uses a specific verb (rename) and resource (multiple files) and enumerates the exact rule types supported (find/replace, case, add text, numbering). This pins down the tool's scope precisely and makes it distinguishable at a glance from the organize/categorize siblings without opening any 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?

The dry_run safety note implies a simulate-then-commit workflow, which is useful routing guidance. However, with 25+ sibling tools, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over organize_files, preview_organization, or undo_last_operation, and no exclusion criteria or prerequisites are given.

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