notebook_rename

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It simply says 'Rename a notebook' but does not mention that it overwrites the existing title, what happens if the notebook doesn't exist, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.

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 short and to the point, with no wasted words. It uses a standard docstring format and front-loads the action. However, it could be slightly more concise if the 'Args' section were integrated into prose.

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 the complexity (2 params, no annotations, output schema exists but not described), the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error cases, or integration with other notebook tools. The agent may lack context to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds a brief hint ('Notebook UUID' and 'New title') beyond the parameter names. This provides minimal additional meaning; more detail on expected formats or constraints would be helpful.

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 explicitly states 'Rename a notebook', which is a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like notebook_create, notebook_delete, notebook_describe, etc., which serve different purposes.

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 (e.g., notebook_update or notebook_set_title). The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as requiring an existing notebook, or when not to use it.

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