rename_view_section

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description implicitly matches (renaming is idempotent and non-destructive). However, the description does not add any behavioral details beyond these annotations, such as whether renaming affects other references or has side effects. With annotations covering the essential traits, the description adds minimal value but is not contradictory.

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, frontloaded sentence of five words: 'Rename a sidebar section.' It is perfectly concise with no redundant information, efficiently stating the tool's action and object.

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 tool with 4 params, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what a 'sidebar section' is, how to obtain a section ID, or any constraints on the new name. Given the tool's low complexity and the presence of annotations, it just barely meets the bar for completeness.

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?

All four parameters (appId, sectionId, name, debug) have clear descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any further semantic information about the parameters, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sidebar section' clearly states the action (rename) and the resource (sidebar section). The tool name matches, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'rename_view' or 'rename_record_template', though the context is clear enough. Score 4 because it's specific but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'move_view_to_section' or 'create_view_section'. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., needing the section ID). The description is purely declarative without any usage hints.

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