name_company_major_version

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains it only renames, does not create/publish/rollback, and mentions it's a singleton taking no id. Could add if renaming is idempotent or overwrites, but current clarity is high.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 2 required params and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, scope (singleton), target identification, and boundaries. No 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions, but description adds value: clarifies majorVersion comes from list_company_versions, and that naming targets integer major version. This contextual info aids selection.

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 names a company document's major version. It specifies the verb 'name', the resource 'company document's major version', and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_company_versions and other naming tools.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'label a release so it is easy to find in history.' Specifies that it targets a MAJOR version by integer number, not a checkpoint or versionId. States what it does NOT do: 'does not create, publish, or roll anything back.' This helps avoid misuse.

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