name_persona_major_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is non-destructive and limited to renaming. It also clarifies the type of version it targets (major version by integer), which is critical for correct invocation.

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 with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying statement is immediately useful. 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 three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter sourcing, and scope. It could mention the return value, but given the operation's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some context for the majorVersion parameter by referencing list_persona_versions, but the schema already describes the parameters adequately.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Give a persona's major version a name'. It further clarifies the scope by stating it only renames and does not create, publish, or roll back. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_persona or request_publish_persona.

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 the tool: to label a major version for easy identification. It specifies that the target is a major version by integer number from list_persona_versions, not a checkpoint or versionId. It also states what the tool does not do, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like name_workflow_major_version.

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