name_prompt_snippet_major_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool only renames, is non-destructive (does not create/publish/rollback), and targets a specific version type. It does not mention permissions or response format, but for a simple rename, the behavior is well-explained.

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, directly stating the purpose, target, and boundaries. Every word adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given 3 simple parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and similar sibling tools, the description adequately covers what the tool does, its target, and constraints. It could mention return value or error cases, but for a rename operation, the context is sufficient.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The description adds value by clarifying that majorVersion is an integer from list_prompt_snippet_versions, not a versionId or checkpoint, and that id is the prompt_snippet's id. This contextualizes the schema's descriptions.

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 major version of a prompt snippet, using 'Give a prompt_snippet's major version a name' and 'label a release'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., name_agent_major_version) by specifying the resource type. It also contrasts with non-rename operations.

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 explicitly says when to use (to find in history) and what not to use on ('Targets a MAJOR version by its integer number, not a checkpoint or a versionId'). It clarifies the tool only renames and does not create/publish/rollback, giving clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it.

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