renameDocumentOrNotebookEntry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Renames' with no information about side effects, permissions, return values, or consequences of renaming. The ':return:' placeholder is empty, revealing no details about the response.

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 short but not well-structured. The first sentence earns its place, but the lines ':param doc_id:' and ':return:' are empty placeholders that add no value. A concise description should avoid such filler and provide substantive information.

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 mutation tool without annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, required permissions, or the exact meaning of doc_id. The simple action is stated, but the overall context is missing.

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 does explain 'name' as 'the new name', but 'doc_id' receives no explanation at all. The schema itself only lists types (=integer|string for doc_id), leaving its meaning and format entirely unspecified.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Renames') and resource ('document or notebook entry'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_documents (read-only) or createNewNotebook (creation). The action 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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. The description simply states the action without contextual cues.

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