name_skill_major_version

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's limited behavior: it only renames, with no side effects like creation, publication, or rollback. It also clarifies the input format (integer major version vs. other identifiers).

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second clarifies scope and input constraints. Every part earns its place.

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 with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter context, and limitations. It is fully complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by specifying that the major version integer comes from list_skill_versions, which goes beyond the schema's description. This extra context justifies a score above baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states the action (renaming a major version), the resource (skill major version), and distinguishes from similar operations (not creating, publishing, or rolling back). It specifies the target as a major version integer, not a checkpoint or versionId.

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?

Description explains that the tool targets a major version by its integer number from list_skill_versions, and clarifies it only renames, not creates or publishes. While it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools, the negation provides clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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