engine_static_rename

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden incl. exact path interpretation and the rule that a same-folder change renames while a different-folder change moves. It also discloses the side effect that 'bundle descriptors follow it.' It does not cover permissions, failure modes, or reversibility, but the core behavior is unusually well articulated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main operationcher and no filler. Each clause adds meaning: the path/new_path mapping, the rename-vs-move rule, and the bundle descriptor side effect.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the operation doesaint and how parameters interact. The only notable gap is that 'bundle descriptors' is unexplained, and there is no mention of error conditions or whether the source path is invalidated on a move.

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 define both parameters. It does so explicitly: 'path is what it is called now, new_path what it becomes', and further explains folder-based rename/move semantics. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific operation ('Rename or move a static file') with the resource and the path semantics ('path is what it is called now, new_path what it becomes'). It also distinguishes rename from move based on folder behavior, which differentiates it from sibling tools like engine_static_add/remove and engine_static_dir_rename.

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 implies when to use the tool: when renaming or moving a static file, and it clarifies the move-vs-rename distinction. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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