Rename Tag

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true; description confirms destructive rename and adds details about nested tag rebasing and dry-run safety. No contradiction, and description adds value beyond annotations.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds essential detail 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 no output schema, the description covers rename behavior, hierarchical, dryRun, and formatting. It lacks explicit mention of the return format for non-dry-run, but overall complete enough for a rename 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 coverage is 100%; description reinforces and clarifies parameter usage (e.g., stripping #, hierarchical behavior). It adds context like dryRun returns counts, which is beyond schema descriptions.

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 renames a tag everywhere in the vault, including inline and frontmatter. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_tags' or 'search_by_tag'.

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 explains when to use 'hierarchical' and 'dryRun' options, and provides formatting guidance (strip leading #). However, it does not compare with alternative tools like 'replace_in_note' or 'update_frontmatter'.

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