rename_file

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

The description does not add behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). The only additional behavior mentioned is the confirm requirement, which is a parameter constraint rather than a behavioral trait like side effects or permissions.

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 short (two sentences), but at the cost of missing essential information. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, it is under-specified. Conciseness is not beneficial when it leads to ambiguity.

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 tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide a complete picture. The agent lacks information about what 'item' is, how to format 'new_name', and what happens after renaming.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It only mentions that 'confirm' should be true, but does not clarify what 'item' or 'new_name' represent (e.g., file path, name format). This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 action ('Rename a file') and the resource ('a file'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. There are no sibling rename tools, so it is distinct. However, it could be more precise about whether folders are included.

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 explicitly states 'Requires confirm=true', which gives a necessary precondition for using the tool. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use rename versus other file operations (e.g., copy, move) available among siblings.

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