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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the exact side-effect boundary: 'Nothing else moves: the credential, its shares, status and every toolbox entry pinned to it are untouched.' It also states the return value ('Returns the updated connection'), which is especially useful given there is no output schema. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Two focused sentences deliver the purpose, the side-effect guarantee, and the return value with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and every clause adds necessary 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?

For a simple two-parameter rename tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope of effects, and return value while the schema covers both parameters. There are no significant gaps that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking the tool 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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented: id is a connection id from connection.list and name is the new display name. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change a connection’s display name.' It then distinguishes itself from sibling connection tools by clarifying that the credential, shares, status, and toolbox entries are untouched, so an agent immediately knows this is a narrow rename operation rather than a broader update, share, or reconnect.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the only desired change is a connection's display name. The explicit statement that nothing else moves also sets an implicit boundary that this is not for altering credentials, shares, status, or toolbox entries. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling tool fills the same rename-only role, so the context is clear.

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