Rename Note

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

With annotations only saying readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses immediate index updates for .md files, no index update for attachments, automatic parent directory creation, best-effort link rewriting, and the broken-link risk when update_links is omitted.

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 structured with a clear opening, a prominent warning about update_links, then labeled .md and attachment behavior. Every sentence carries actionable information, and the most important usage rule is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has four parameters and non-trivial side effects (link rewriting, index updates, directory creation), and the description covers all of these without needing to explain return values since an output schema exists. It is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly and avoid common mistakes.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful parameter context beyond the schema: parent directories are created automatically for new_path, .md files get index updates immediately, and attachments do not. This helps the agent reason about the consequences of the parameters, not just their types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rename or move a document or attachment.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like write/edit (content changes) and move_folder (folders) by restricting scope to documents and attachments.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: always set update_links=True for .md notes, and it explicitly says not to call reindex afterward. It does not explicitly compare against move_folder or write, but the .md vs. attachment distinction and the reindex exclusion provide clear usage context.

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