rename_note

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: file naming via slugify, H1 heading update, wiki-link rewriting with alias/heading preservation, failure on existing target name, and return values. These are concrete side effects and constraints an agent needs to know.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the following sentences provide essential detail on behavior and return values. Everything earns its place.

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?

The description covers the action, file behavior, heading updates, link rewriting, collision handling, and key return values. The only minor gap is fully defining the name_or_path parameter format, but the parameter name and context make it understandable. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return structure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains new_title (file becomes slugify(new_title).md and H1 updates), but name_or_path is only implied as the note to rename. It doesn't clarify whether it accepts a title, path, or note ID, leaving a gap for that parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Rename a note to a new title.' It then details the exact behavior (file renamed to slugify(new_title).md, H1 updated, wiki-links rewritten), which fully distinguishes it from siblings like edit_note or update_note.

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 context is unambiguous: this tool is for renaming a note. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary guidance (e.g., use edit_note for content changes). The clear scope and description of side effects make the usage evident, but explicit differentiation from sibling tools is missing.

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