Rename a file

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

The description discloses a meaningful side effect beyond the idempotentHint annotation: 'Pages embedding it by its old URL will break — Wiki.js does not rewrite them.' This gives the agent important context that the operation is not just a label change. It does not contradict the idempotentHint annotation.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action is stated first, followed immediately by the critical side effect, making it easy to parse and act on.

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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the most important behavioral caveat. The confirm_token workflow is documented in the schema, so the absence of it in the description is not a serious gap. A short note about the token confirmation flow would make it fully 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 100%, and each parameter already has a useful description, including the confirm_token flow. The tool description itself adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Renames an asset.' This clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate this tool from related siblings like upload_asset or delete_asset beyond the name, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no explicit guidance on when to choose rename_asset over other asset tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is 'use this when renaming an asset,' which is not enough to satisfy the when-to-use dimension.

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