name_reference_doc_major_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool only renames and does not create/publish/roll back, indicating non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., if name already exists or major version missing), permissions, or side effects.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds essential 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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, and parameter source. It lacks error handling or return value details, but given the tool's simplicity, it is adequately 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that majorVersion is an integer from list_reference_doc_versions (not a versionId), and reinforces the meaning of the name parameter. This extra context raises the score.

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 action ('give a name to a major version'), the resource ('reference_doc's major version'), and the purpose ('label a release so it is easy to find in history'). It distinguishes from sibling naming tools by being specific to reference_doc.

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 specifies that the target is a MAJOR version by its integer number from list_reference_doc_versions, not a checkpoint or versionId. It also clarifies the tool only renames, not creates, publishes, or rolls back. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like creating a new version.

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