rename_attachment

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

Annotations already convey that this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive operation. The description adds value by disclosing that existing references are NOT rewritten and that the tool returns a relativePath, which is behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical side-effect note is concise and directly actionable. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral nuance (references not updated) and the follow-up action (use relativePath). It could mention uniqueness of newName or existence checks, but these are not critical for a well-functioning agent given the sibling tools and schema context.

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 only 50% (newName and filename have descriptions, pageId and collectiveId do not). The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters; it mentions relativePath which is a return value, not a parameter. An agent may be unsure about the semantics of pageId and collectiveId beyond their obvious roles.

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 action ('Rename an attachment on a page') and differentiates from siblings like delete_attachment and get_attachment by the specific verb and resource. It also adds a critical detail about side effects, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for use: it renames an attachment and explicitly instructs the agent to update references manually using the returned relativePath. This provides strong guidance on what to do after calling, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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