modx_rename_media_file

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not say whether renaming overwrites an existing file of that name, whether it requires specific media-source permissions, whether it is reversible, or what happens if the target path is invalid.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and with zero filler. The comma-spliced parameter gloss in the second sentence is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, which keeps it from a 5.

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 three-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should disclose overwrite behavior and permission expectations. It covers only the bare mapping of parameters to concepts, leaving the agent without enough to invoke it confidently in edge cases.

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%, and the schema itself gives no parameter descriptions, so the brief glosses ('source = id/name', 'path = current file path', 'new_name = new filename') add real meaning for all three parameters. However, they omit format details: whether path is relative to the source root or leading-slash prefixed, and when source should be an id versus a name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Rename a file inside a media source.' The verb 'rename' cleanly separates it from sibling tools such as modx_update_media_file, modx_create_media_file and modx_delete_media_file. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of the overlapping modx_update_media_file sibling, and no preconditions stated. An agent must infer entirely from the verb that this is for changing a filename rather than editing file contents.

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