renameDocumentOrNotebookEntry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool changes names and returns updated information, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the change is reversible, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent adequately about behavioral traits.

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 short sentences: a purpose statement, usage hint, and return info. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the 'Usage' sentence is somewhat redundant with the first, slightly reducing efficiency, but overall it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, error cases, and output structure. The return statement is vague ('Updated document information'), failing to provide sufficient context for the agent to understand the tool fully.

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 'doc_id' and 'name' implicitly through context but doesn't explain their semantics, formats, or constraints (e.g., that 'doc_id' can be integer or string). The description adds minimal value beyond what the bare schema provides, failing to clarify parameter meanings effectively.

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: 'Changes the name/title of a document or notebook entry.' It specifies the verb ('Changes') and resource ('name/title of a document or notebook entry'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'rename_inventory_item' or 'update_document', which could have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance: 'Update document titles for better organization.' This implies a use case but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_document' or 'rename_inventory_item', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given, leaving the agent with little contextual direction.

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