box_file_rename_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool renames a file but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the rename is reversible, if it affects file metadata or sharing links, rate limits, or error conditions. 'Rename' implies mutation, but without annotations, the description should provide more context about what this operation entails.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though they could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, but the structure is somewhat mechanical rather than flowing naturally.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, effects) and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values. For a simple rename tool, it's adequate but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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 the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics by explaining 'file_id' as 'The ID of the file to rename' and 'new_name' as 'The new name for the file', which clarifies what each parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., name length restrictions, allowed characters), validation rules, or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 verb ('Rename') and resource ('a file in Box'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_folder_rename_tool' or 'box_file_move_tool', which would require more specific context about when to rename versus move or rename folders.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., box_file_move_tool, box_folder_rename_tool, box_file_set_description_tool), there's no indication of when renaming is appropriate versus moving, renaming folders, or setting descriptions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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