rename_note

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 usefully adds that the tool 'Overwrites the target if it already exists,' which is critical for a mutation operation. However, it lacks other important behavioral details like permission requirements, error handling, or whether the operation is reversible. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist).

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 extremely concise—two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral context ('Overwrites...'). It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates essential information without redundancy.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the core action and a key behavioral trait (overwriting) but misses usage guidelines, parameter details, and other behavioral aspects like error conditions. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'Markdown (.md) note' and 'category,' which loosely map to 'filename' and 'category' parameters, but doesn't explain parameter meanings, formats (e.g., file extensions), or the optionality of 'category.' With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, this adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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 action ('Rename') and resource ('a Markdown (.md) note inside Notes or a category'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'edit_note' (which likely modifies content) by focusing on filename changes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'edit_category' might also rename categories).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the note must exist), compare to similar tools like 'edit_note' or 'create_note', or specify edge cases (e.g., handling invalid filenames). The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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