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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: renamed columns are shown, optional show/hide lists exist, catalog variant-axis renames preserve column id and catalog role, and hiding a variant axis is refused. It does not explain permissions or undoability, but with destructiveHint already declaring the risk profile, this is solid contextual disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the main action and keeps the description compact. The catalog-specific sentence is dense but carries important edge-case information that 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?

Covers the core rename behavior and catalog nuance, but for a destructive five-parameter mutation with no output schema it omits sheet targeting details, show/hide effects, and result expectations. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% for five parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains headers keys/values well but leaves hide, show, sheet_id, and sheet_number semantics undocumented, including whether sheet_id and sheet_number are alternatives.

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 specific verb and resource: "Change header names on a sheet" plus how keys and values map. This clearly distinguishes it from rename_sheet, which renames the sheet itself, and from column add/remove tools.

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?

Gives clear usage context for header keys (data1 or current header) and optional show/hide lists. It does not explicitly name when to use this versus update_sheet_settings or rename_sheet, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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