rename_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. As a mutating operation, it doesn't state whether the operation overwrites existing files at newPath (destructive risk), whether the original is preserved, what happens in the case of dir vs file behavior differences, or permission requirements. 'Inside allowed folders' hints at restriction but doesn't explain enforcement or failure behavior.

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 efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action clearly. However, it could arguably be slightly under-specified rather than concise, but for what it attempts to convey it is tight and readable.

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?

This is a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage on parameters. The description is a single sentence that fails to address behavioral expectations (overwrite behavior, return values, failure modes). With two undocumented parameters and no annotation safety flags, the description should provide substantially more guidance for an agent to invoke this safely and correctly.

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%, meaning 2 parameters (oldPath, newPath) have zero documentation in the schema. The description mentions 'rename or move' which implies oldPath→newPath mapping, but doesn't specify path formats (absolute vs relative), whether directories are supported for both params, or constraints on the newPath (e.g., must the parent directory exist?). The description does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 ('Rename or move a file or directory') and specifies the scope ('inside allowed folders'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_file, delete_file, and write_file, all of which have different operations. However, it doesn't go beyond the basic verb+resource to add value, and could be sharper about distinguishing 'rename' from 'move' behaviors.

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 through 'inside allowed folders' but gives no when/when-not guidance or explicit alternatives. Given the sibling tools include run_terminal_command (which could also move files) and delete_file (rename is sometimes used as a workaround for delete), the description could offer clearer context on when to choose this tool. There's no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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