tc_rename_item

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds valuable operational context: the TC_ENABLE_WRITE requirement and the API behavior of ignoring new names when a new parent is sent. This complements rather than contradicts the annotations, though it does not cover error cases or atomicity.

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 compact and well-structured: an opening purpose, a requirement line, a behavioral note, a concise Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential operational details: the write flag, the rename/move separation, all parameters, and a return value sketch. It omits edge-case behavior (e.g., errors, conflicts), but the output schema and sibling context fill most gaps, making it sufficiently complete for a mutation tool.

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%, and the Args section provides basic meanings for each parameter (e.g., 'Folder or file ID' for item_id, default for item_type). This adds some value but is largely tautological, merely restating field names without deeper detail like ID formats or type constraints.

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 states 'Rename a folder or a file' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like tc_move_item and tc_copy_file. The title and tool name align, and the scope is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: requires TC_ENABLE_WRITE=1 and explicitly warns that renaming and moving must be separate calls, which differentiates it from tc_move_item. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool beyond this separation constraint.

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