notebook_rename

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Rename a notebook' without explaining side effects, idempotency, or permission requirements. It lacks any detail about what happens when the tool is invoked, such as whether the title is overwritten or if there are ordering constraints.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 simple rename operation with full schema documentation, the description offers the minimum viable context. It doesn't explicitly explain the expected outcome or when to use the tool, but the low complexity and clear purpose make it adequate, though gaps remain in usage orientation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides for notebook_id and new_title, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 clearly states the specific verb 'rename' and resource 'notebook', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like notebook_create and notebook_delete because 'rename' is a distinct operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. There is no explicit context about when renaming is appropriate or what qualifies as a valid new_title.

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