name_tool_major_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses this is a rename-only, non-destructive operation, and clarifies it targets major version integer, not checkpoint or versionId. No mention of auth or side effects, but for a rename it's sufficient.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and constraints. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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?

The description adequately explains the tool's function given its simplicity. No output schema is present, but the rename operation likely returns a simple success. It doesn't mention return value, but that's acceptable for such a tool.

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 clear descriptions. The description adds context: id is tool's id, name is new label, majorVersion is integer from list_tool_versions, reinforcing correct usage beyond schema.

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 verb 'name' and resource 'tool's major version', and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the tool entity. It also differentiates from other version operations like create, publish, or rollback.

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 states when to use (to label a major version for history), and what it does not do (not create, publish, rollback). It mentions the target comes from list_tool_versions, but could be more explicit about when not to use vs alternative naming tools, though the tool name itself differentiates.

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