obsidian_rename

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that renaming only changes the name within the same folder and provides examples, but it does not cover edge cases such as overwriting existing notes or how the rename affects backlinks or references.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, a list of parameters, and two practical examples. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: selection mechanisms, required parameter, same-folder behavior, and an explicit alternative tool. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

While the schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, the description adds the crucial constraint that 'one of file or path is required' and clarifies the distinction between wikilink resolution and exact paths. The concrete examples further enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence 'Rename a note, selecting it by file name or exact path' clearly states the action and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling obsidian_move by explicitly noting that renaming only changes the name within the same folder, which is a key differentiator.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus obsidian_move: 'use obsidian_move to relocate a note to a different folder.' It also specifies the selection criteria and the required constraint that one of file or path must be provided.

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