block.rename

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

Without annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it renames a reference, preserves line content, and implies mutation. However, it omits details like error conditions, concurrency handling (expected_block_hash), and side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. However, it could be structured to highlight key aspects like operation scope and preservation constraints more clearly.

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 6 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, the role of expected_block_hash, or how vault and dry_run affect behavior. More detail is needed for a complete understanding.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description only mentions 'rename a block reference' but does not explain the roles of file, blockId, newId, expected_block_hash, vault, or dry_run. Critical parameter expected_block_hash is left unexplained.

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: renaming a block reference (^old → ^new) on the same line while preserving line content. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like block.replace or heading.rename.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as block.replace or apply_edits. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for selection among many sibling tools.

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