name_agent_major_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool only renames, and does not create, publish, or roll back. It clarifies that the target is a major version integer, not other identifiers. This adequately discloses the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes meaning. No redundant or tangential information.

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 rename operation, the description covers the action, target, constraints, and what it does not do. No output schema is present, but the description need not explain return values. It is complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful clarification for the majorVersion parameter (integer from list_agent_versions, not a checkpoint or versionId). Other parameters are not enhanced beyond the schema. Overall, marginal added value.

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 tool renames an agent's major version, distinguishing it from creation, publishing, or rollback operations. It specifies the target as a major version integer from list_agent_versions, avoiding confusion with checkpoints or version IDs.

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 explains when to use it (labeling a release) and what not to target (not a checkpoint or versionId). It references list_agent_versions to obtain the integer. It does not explicitly list alternative tools but implies this is for renaming only, which is sufficient guidance.

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