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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two genuinely useful traits: replacing inputs triggers a server-side recompute (a side effect the agent must anticipate), and encrypted saves remain locked, implying the operation will not take effect on them. It omits permission requirements and behavior when neither field is supplied, so not perfect.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the usage trigger, then the constraint. Every sentence adds distinct information with no restatement of the title or 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all three parameters are documented in-schema. The description covers the mutation semantics and the encrypted-save caveat. Minor gaps remain around whether a call with neither optional field errors out.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the optional/partial nature of the update via 'and/or' and restates that inputs cause recomputation, but adds no format or format-specific detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verbs and resource: 'Renames a saved calculation and/or replaces its inputs (recomputing results).' An agent can distinguish this mutation from save_calculation, load_saved_calculation and delete_saved_calculation from the description alone. No sibling is named explicitly, so not a 5.

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?

Explicit trigger condition: 'Use when the user asks to rename a save or re-run it with different inputs.' That maps user intent directly to tool choice. No explicit when-not or named alternatives (e.g. use save_calculation to create a new one), which keeps it below 5.

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