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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the mutation itself—no side effects, permissions, or reversibility—but it does not contradict the 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant qualification. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity rename operation with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and supportive annotations, this description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks richer usage and behavioral context, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 fully documents both parameters: id is described as the datasource connection ID from connected_datasources, and name is described as the new name. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries that burden.

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 states a specific action ('Rename') and a specific resource ('a datasource connection'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish among the many connection-related siblings such as create_connection, link_datasource, or delete_connection, but the rename verb is unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is implied: call this when the user wants to change the name of an existing datasource connection. There are no explicit exclusions, alternative tool suggestions, or prerequisites mentioned, but the verb alone is enough to signal the intended scenario.

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