document_rename_schema

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait: updating all $ref references throughout the document. However, it does not mention that the tool mutates the document in place, requires a valid session, or any potential risks like breaking references. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it partially fulfills it.

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?

A single sentence of 12 words that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description lacks context about success/failure outcomes, return value, and whether the operation is reversible. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent might need to infer behavior. It is minimally adequate for a rename operation but incomplete for full understanding.

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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description does not add extra detail beyond the schema, such as naming conventions or format requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already adequately describes parameters.

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 the action (rename a schema definition) and the key side effect (update all $ref references). It distinguishes from sibling tools like document_rename_path and document_rename_tag by specifying 'schema definition'. However, it does not explicitly mention that the tool operates on OpenAPI documents, which is implied by context.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like document_rename_path or document_rename_tag. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. Given the large number of sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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