Переименовать пиксель

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation is strictly a rename, and the response format is disclosed as {"pixel": {...}} with updated data. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the key constraint and response shape. No redundant information is present, making it highly concise.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter update tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains the exact scope of the update, the response format, and the requirement of pixel_id. Minor gaps like error handling are not necessary for this simple operation.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions for both name and pixel_id, so the description adds marginal semantic value. It reinforces that only name is changeable, but this is also inferable from the schema, which lists name as the only mutable property.

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 uses a specific verb 'Changes' with a resource 'specified pixel' and immediately clarifies the scope as 'only the name field — renaming'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_pixel and aligns with the title 'Переименовать пиксель'.

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 conveys that this tool is for renaming only, as it explicitly states 'only the name field is available for change', providing clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling list includes rename_segment for segments, so the intended use case is unambiguous.

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