renameValueGroup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '重命名值分组' implies a mutation operation (renaming), but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether the rename is reversible, what happens to references to the old name, error conditions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 at just three Chinese characters. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, according to the scoring framework, conciseness is evaluated separately from completeness. The description contains zero wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action.

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 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, whether there are constraints on the new name, how to handle errors, or how this differs from other rename operations. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 descriptions in Chinese ('分组现有名称' for groupName and '分组的新名称' for newName). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information 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 '重命名值分组' (Rename value group) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'renameValueGroup' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what type of value group is being renamed or provide any distinguishing context from sibling tools like renameGroup or renameValue. While the verb 'rename' is clear, the description lacks specificity about the resource 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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that rename different entities (renameGroup, renameRule, renameValue), but the description doesn't help an agent understand when renameValueGroup is appropriate versus these other rename operations. 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.