重命名文件

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

Annotations already disclose that the operation is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds only '成功返回操作结果' (returns operation result on success), which is minimal and does not cover error behavior, permission needs, or overwrite 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?

The description is very compact: a single purpose sentence, a short parameter list, and a return note. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the parameter section duplicates schema information.

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 tool is simple and annotations cover safety traits, but the description lacks usage guidance and fails to mention the configurable response_format. It is minimally viable for a rename operation but leaves gaps for an agent deciding among file-related siblings.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description merely repeats the schema's parameter names and descriptions without adding additional meaning, and it omits the response_format parameter.

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 tool's function: renaming a file in the cloud drive ('重命名云盘中的文件'). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rename_folder or delete_file.

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. The description offers no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with rename_folder and other cloud operations.

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