renameValue

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. '重命名值' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens if the value doesn't exist or the new name conflicts, whether the change is reversible, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 two characters ('重命名值'), which is appropriately sized for such a simple concept. It's front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words. While it's under-specified in content, it earns full marks for conciseness as every character serves the purpose of stating the tool's function.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after renaming, what type of value is affected, or how this differs from other rename operations. The description fails to provide the contextual information needed for an agent to use this tool effectively in its ecosystem.

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 has 100% description coverage with clear parameter documentation ('值现有名称' for existing name, '值的新名称' for new name). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score 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 '重命名值' (Rename value) is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of 'value' is being renamed (e.g., configuration value, data value, parameter value) or distinguish this from sibling tools like renameGroup or renameRule. The purpose is vague and lacks the verb+resource specificity needed for clear understanding.

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. There are multiple rename-related sibling tools (renameGroup, renameRule, renameValueGroup), but the description doesn't indicate what makes this tool different or when it should be chosen over those alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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