engine_static_dir_rename

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses critical behavioral traits: bundle descriptors follow files, built statics/bundle.* are NOT rebuilt, the response counts affected files, and the owner must re-save bundles. This goes well beyond a generic 'rename' and prevents the agent from assuming stale output is safe.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place, with the core action front-loaded and side effects stated in a dependent clause. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential inputs, the two valid operation modes, a critical non-rebuild warning, and the outcome semantics. Minor gaps remain around error handling and the ambiguous combined operation, but the agent has enough to invoke correctly in the common cases.

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 0%, so the description must explain the two string parameters. It does so implicitly through the parent/name distinction: path is the current location and new_path is the target, with different combinations yielding rename vs move. However, it leaves the combined case (different parent AND different name) ambiguous and doesn't specify path format or existence expectations.

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+resource pair ('Rename or move a statics folder') and immediately disambiguates the two variants via parent/name relationships. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like engine_static_rename (which targets a static file) and engine_static_dir_add/remove.

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 concrete conditions for when to use rename vs move ('same parent with a new name renames, another parent with the same name moves'), which tells an agent how to pick the right operation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the sibling set makes the domain obvious.

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