spoolman_rename_location

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a bare rename by stating 'All spools at the old location will be updated to the new name,' revealing an important side effect. However, it does not disclose error conditions or return value, so it is slightly incomplete for full transparency.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a critical side effect. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity (two required params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and a key behavioral consequence. It does not mention return values or error handling, but for a rename operation with well-documented parameters, the information is sufficient for an AI to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100% for both parameters, so the description need not add parameter information. The description does not go beyond the schema—it simply restates 'old location' and 'new name' without adding syntax or behavioral specifics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb-object pair, 'Rename an existing spool storage location,' which clearly identifies the tool's action and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like spoolman_list_locations or spoolman_delete_spool by focusing on renaming, and the follow-up sentence reinforces the scope.

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: use this tool to rename an existing spool location. It implies the appropriate time to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since no conflicting sibling performs a rename, the context is sufficient.

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