rename_window

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose one important constraint — the new display name must be a valid adjective+noun agent name — and confirms it returns the updated record, but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, reversibility, or what triggers the naming validation to fail.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the numpy-style Parameters and Returns blocks largely restate the input schema, which is redundant given the structured fields already present. Reasonably sized but not economical.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns section is redundant, and the mutation's side effects, authorization needs, and the undocumented 'format' parameter remain unexplained. Adequate for a simple rename, but incomplete for a state-changing tool with zero annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all three required parameters with meaning plus a validation rule on new_display_name that the schema does not express. It misses the optional 'format' parameter entirely, but does well on the parameters that matter.

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 and resource ('Update the display name of a window identity'), which is precise enough to distinguish it from siblings like create_agent_identity or list_window_identities. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to rename versus creating a new identity, expiring a window, or any prerequisite workflow. With a dense sibling set including create_agent_identity and expire_window, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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