rename_tag

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation effect (renaming across all notes) and return value (count or error). However, it does not mention prerequisites, reversibility, or side effects beyond the update.

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 extremely concise with one sentence for purpose and a structured Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description includes return info and explains the scope. It omits idempotency and existence checks but is largely 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 compensate. It clearly defines both parameters: 'old_tag: Tag to rename' and 'new_tag: New tag name', adding meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 'Rename a tag across all notes.' It uses a specific verb (rename) and resource (tag) with scope (across all notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge_tags and move_category.

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 usage for renaming tags but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like merge_tags. No exclusions or context for 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.