remarkable_rename

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating it's a mutation but not destructive. The description adds valuable context: it explicitly states that contents, annotations, and page data are untouched, and it mentions atomicity and that the response includes the previous library state for undo. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful behavioral transparency, warranting a 4.

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 usecase, instructions, parameters, and examples. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every section adds value. The examples clarify usage. It is concise and efficient with no unnecessary filler, earning a 5.

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?

The description covers the operation's effect, atomicity, undo capability, and the main parameters. An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, it omits the compact_output parameter and does not address error conditions or edge cases (e.g., item not found). Given the tool's moderate complexity and that most critical information is present, a 4 is justified.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the two required parameters (item and new_name) with useful semantics ('Current name or full path' and 'just the name, not a path'), which is helpful. However, it does not mention the optional 'compact_output' parameter that appears in the schema. Since one parameter is undocumented, the compensation is incomplete, so a 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?

The description clearly states the purpose: 'Rename a document or folder on your reMarkable.' This is a specific verb (rename) and resource (document/folder), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like remarkable_move, which might involve similar operations. The name and description are clear enough, but no sibling differentiation is present, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 instructions provide context about the operation ('Changes the visible name. Contents, annotations and page data are untouched.') but do not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools. The usage is implied rather than explicit, so a 3 is given.

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