notebook_rename

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, whether the rename is reversible, effects on linked resources, or error handling for invalid inputs, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter details in a brief, structured format. Every sentence earns its place 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, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or error handling, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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. It adds minimal semantics by naming parameters ('notebook_id' as UUID, 'new_title' as title) but doesn't explain formats, constraints, or examples. This provides basic clarity but falls short of fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 verb ('rename') and resource ('notebook'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'notebook_create' or 'notebook_describe' beyond the basic action, missing explicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing notebook), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'notebook_create' for initial naming or 'notebook_describe' for viewing details.

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