heading.rename

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: in-place modification, error on missing/duplicate, preserves level, and does not update backlinks. However, it omits whether the operation is destructive, auth needs, or concurrency semantics.

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: four clauses in two sentences covering purpose, error conditions, preservation, and alternative. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and a complex operation, the description is too brief. It lacks explanations for critical parameters like expected_section_hash and delimiter, and does not describe return values or side effects.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It fails to describe any of the 7 parameters (file, vault, dry_run, heading, newText, delimiter, expected_section_hash), leaving agents without necessary context.

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?

Clearly states verb 'rename' and resource 'heading's text', distinguishes from siblings by mentioning error conditions on missing/duplicate and preserving heading level, and explicitly contrasts with bulk.apply for backlink updates.

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?

Provides explicit context for when to use (rename heading text in place), notes that it errors on missing/duplicate, and directs to use bulk.apply for backlink updates, offering an alternative tool.

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