renameGroup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '重命名分组' only states the action without any information about permissions required, whether the rename is atomic/reversible, error conditions (e.g., duplicate names), side effects, or what happens upon success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise with just three characters in Chinese ('重命名分组'), which translates to 'Rename group'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. While under-specified, it's not verbose.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar siblings, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or distinguish itself from other rename tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall completeness is poor for a tool that modifies data.

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%, with both parameters ('groupName' and 'newName') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '重命名分组' (Rename group) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'renameGroup'. It specifies the verb (rename) and resource (group) but doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'renameRule', 'renameValue', or 'renameValueGroup', all of which perform similar rename operations on different resource types. The description lacks specificity about what kind of group is being renamed.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the group must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot rename to an existing name), or when to choose other rename tools like 'renameRule' or 'renameValueGroup'. With multiple rename siblings in the context, this omission is significant.

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