rename_enum_entry

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description goes well beyond them: exact idempotency semantics (already_named success), which inputs produce honest errors, the engine's IsEnumeratorDisplayNameValid rejection of duplicate/empty names, and the fact that the _MAX sentinel can never be targeted. This is rich disclosure an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then idempotency, then failure modes, and closes with an explicit return shape. It is slightly dense and includes some API-path detail that a caller does not strictly need, but virtually every sentence carries actionable 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by spelling out the returned fields, so an agent knows what to expect after the call. Combined with the error and idempotency semantics, nothing needed to invoke or interpret this tool is missing.

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% and each parameter carries its own description, so the schema already documents enum_path, entry_name and new_name. The description largely restates those semantics (display-or-internal-name resolution) rather than adding new type/format constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (rename) and resource (one enumerator of a UUserDefinedEnum), and even names the engine API path used. An agent can distinguish it from add_enum_entry/remove_enum_entry/reorder_enum_entry purely from the scope limit of a single entry.

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 clearly frames the operating context, including idempotent no-op behavior and the error surface (unknown entry, empty/invalid/duplicate name), which tells the agent when a call will succeed. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent to sibling tools such as add_enum_entry or remove_enum_entry for those operations.

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