fs_rename

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention overwrite behavior, error conditions (e.g., destination exists), permission requirements, or atomicity. The phrase 'renames or moves' is vague without stating if move implies across filesystems.

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?

Extremely concise at one phrase, but this sacrifices necessary detail. While efficient, it omits critical information that affects tool invocation, making it less effective.

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 tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain outcomes, side effects, and return behavior. It does not state whether it returns success/failure, or if the operation is reversible. Incomplete for the complexity of rename/move operations.

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% with descriptions for each parameter, though minimal ('Source path', 'Destination path'). The description does not add extra meaning beyond these, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action (rename/move) and resource (file/directory), distinguishing it from other fs tools like fs_read or fs_rmrf. However, it lacks specifics like scope or whether it works on both files and directories, which are already clear from the description.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify when to use fs_rename vs. reading and writing, or if there are prerequisites like session being open.

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