streamlabs_rename_source

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. It reveals a key behavioral trait: the rename propagates to all usages of the source, not just one scene item. This is valuable context beyond what a generic 'Rename a source' would convey.

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 concise sentence that delivers the key information in the first four words and adds an important caveat in parentheses. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not thorough. It explains the primary behavior and a key nuance, but lacks parameter details and explicit usage scenarios. It is minimally complete 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'sourceId' or 'newName' beyond what the schema already indicates. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description doesn't add any constraints, formats, or examples, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.

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 clearly states 'Rename a source' with a specific verb and resource, and adds the critical scope clarification that it renames the underlying source everywhere, not just one scene item. This distinguishes it from any item-level operation and gives a precise purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you intend to rename the source globally across all scene items. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X', but the clarification 'not just one scene item' provides enough context to select it appropriately.

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