engine_html_rename

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state a key behavioral trait: the rename is scoped to the same module folder and only changes the file name, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as overwriting an existing file, failure conditions if the source path does not exist, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap in transparency.

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, readable sentence that front-loads the action and parameter meanings. It avoids redundancy and keeps the explanation tight. The dash-based clarification is a bit informal but effective. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 because it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the parameter explanations), but it is efficient and to the point.

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 tool with two string parameters, the description covers the core action, parameter semantics, and a scope constraint. However, it lacks information about error handling, preconditions (e.g., the source path must exist), return values, or what happens if the target already exists. Given no output schema or annotations, these omissions leave some uncertainty for an agent executing the tool, making the description adequate but not fully complete.

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 fully explain the parameters. It does so explicitly: 'path is what it is called now, new_path what it becomes.' It also adds the crucial constraint that the new path is within the same module folder, implying new_path is just a file name, not a full path. This goes beyond the bare schema and provides necessary context for correct usage.

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 a template view') and specifies the resource type (template view), distinguishing it from other rename tools for static, image, template, or PHP resources. It also clarifies the exact meaning of the two parameters and the scope (same module folder), making the tool's function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the 'html' aspect beyond the tool name, so it could be slightly more explicit about the resource type.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the constraint that only the file name changes within the same module folder, which implies it is not for moving across folders or modules, but it does not reference sibling tools like engine_static_rename or engine_template_rename or advise against using them. There is no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name.

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