rename_tag

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds the important behavioral detail that the rename applies globally ('everywhere'). However, it does not disclose what happens if the new name already exists or whether the operation is atomic, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the verb 'Rename', and contains no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core purpose in minimal space.

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-string-parameter tool with clear annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description plus schema and annotations cover the essential usage scenario. The only minor gap is lack of detail about edge cases like name conflicts or return values, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not explicitly explain that 'oldName' is the current tag and 'newName' is the replacement. Although the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Rename a tag everywhere it is used' clearly identifies the action (rename), the resource (tag), and the scope (everywhere it is used). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like delete_tags and list_tags by indicating a global rename operation.

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 phrase 'everywhere it is used' implies the tool is for renaming a tag across all its occurrences, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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