rename_section

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the description needn't restate that. However, the description does not disclose any behavioral consequences beyond the action, such as whether existing references are updated, impact on rungs, or whether the operation is reversible. The 'expected_revision' parameter hints at concurrency control but the description provides no context.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is appropriately sized, but given the 0% schema coverage and mutation semantics, a bit more detail would not hurt.

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?

A deletion/rename tool with destructiveHint=true and 5 parameters including an optional revision should explain prerequisites, side effects, and concurrency behavior. The output schema is present, so return values are likely covered, but the description fails to provide critical usage context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'program section' but does not explain the role of project_id, program_name, section_name, or especially expected_revision. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, but the revision semantics are entirely undocumented.

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 'Rename one program section' clearly states the verb (rename) and resource (program section), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_section and delete_section. It lacks explicit mention of the project/program context, but the schema parameters fill that in.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, but the name and description clearly imply a mutation operation on a section. It does not mention when to prefer other tools (e.g., create_section, delete_section), but the simple scoping is implied by the sibling set.

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