rename_heading

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains the global rewrite behavior, alias preservation, exclusion of fenced code blocks, reliance on a warm backlink index, and matching semantics. This is rich, non-obvious context that goes far beyond what the input schema states.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and packs in essential behavioral details without redundancy. Every clause adds value, making it efficient and highly readable.

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 is quite complete for a mutation tool without annotations or output schema: it covers side effects, scope, matching quirks, and performance. The only slight gap is not mentioning what the tool returns (e.g., success status or updated content), but the overall usage context is well covered.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining oldHeading matching behavior (case-insensitive, first match wins), the vault-wide rewrite effect, and that references are preserved—clarifying the impact of parameters even though it does not describe each parameter individually.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Rename a heading in a note') and immediately clarifies the unique action of rewriting wikilinks and embeds vault-wide. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like patch_note or replace_in_note, which do not specifically target heading references.

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 clearly communicates the intended use case: renaming headings while preserving references. It includes important caveats (case-insensitive matching, first duplicate wins, fenced code blocks left alone) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions where it should not be used.

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