rename_category

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

Without relying on annotations, it discloses the critical non-atomic semantics ("rewrites each note individually and is not atomic: a partial failure leaves some notes moved") and that per-note outcomes are reported. This meaningfully extends the destructiveHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations with the failure-mode detail an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and the reason for the implementation, followed by the failure semantics and the recursive option. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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, non-atomic mutation with no output schema, the description covers mechanism, atomicity, failure behavior, and result reporting. Nothing material to calling it correctly is missing.

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 67%, and the description reinforces the recursive flag's meaning, but it adds little for `from` and `to` beyond what the schema already documents (the schema itself covers the "" uncategorized case). Adequate pairing with the schema, but no extra semantic depth.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Rename a category") and immediately clarifies the non-obvious mechanism: "moving every note in it" because "The Notes API has no category rename." No sibling tool offers a rename, and the distinction from set_note_category or update_note is clear.

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 gives an explicit conditional instruction for the recursive parameter ("Pass recursive=true to re-parent nested subcategories too"), which tells the agent when to set the flag. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over manually moving notes or explicit exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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