rename_node

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

Goes well beyond the single destructiveHint=false annotation: it discloses the failure modes (NAME_CONFLICT for an existing sibling name, NOT_FOUND for trashed items), the required files:write permission, the retry-safety mechanism, and that the updated node is returned.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, error behavior, return value, alternatives, and prerequisites. The core purpose is front-loaded with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still notes that the updated node is returned, and it covers the mutation-specific concerns (permissions, conflict errors, retry safety) an agent needs before calling.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by establishing that node_id and absolute path are alternative identifiers and that idempotency_key exists for retry safety rather than ordinary calls. It does not, however, say what happens if both identifiers are supplied.

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?

States a precise verb and resource (rename one file or folder), plus the key scoping fact that it is in-place and that the target is identified by node_id or absolute path. It is immediately distinguishable from move_nodes, which is named explicitly.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use move_nodes to relocate, call this once per item to rename many, and pass idempotency_key to make retries safe. Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else conditions are stated.

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