name_workflow_major_version

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the behavior: it is a non-destructive rename operation. It explicitly states 'This only renames; it does not create, publish, or roll anything back,' ensuring the agent understands the lack of 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 extremely concise—two sentences that convey purpose, scope, and behavioral constraints without any redundant 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the action, the resource, parameter semantics, and boundaries of the operation.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, but the description adds value by explaining the major version concept, distinguishing it from checkpoints/versionIds, and referencing list_workflow_versions as the source of the integer number.

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 workflow's major version a name'), identifies the resource ('workflow's major version'), and distinguishes from other tools by specifying it targets major versions by integer number, not checkpoints or versionIds.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (naming major versions from list_workflow_versions) and what it does not do (create, publish, roll back). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the scope is well-defined.

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