Rename file or directory

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation mutates NAS state, cannot be undone, keeps the parent directory the same, and returns the updated {name, path}. It does not mention permission requirements or what happens if the target name already exists, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and scope, the second explains the use case, and the third gives the key constraint. Every sentence earns its place, and the sibling comparison is concise.

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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the mutation risk, the same-directory constraint, and the return value. A minor gap is the lack of error conditions (e.g., name collision), but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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 value by clarifying that new_name is a bare basename, not a path, and that the parent directory stays the same. This prevents a common misuse where a user might pass a full path as new_name.

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 states a specific verb ('Rename'), a specific resource ('one file or directory on the ZSpace NAS'), and the key constraint 'keeping it in place.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting it is same-directory only and does not accept multiple paths, unlike zspace_move.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('fix a name without changing location') and when not to ('use zspace_move to relocate to a different parent'), and notes that move accepts several paths while rename does not. This is strong routing guidance.

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