Rename tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose three real behaviors: the change is applied live rather than staged, the app trims whitespace, and an empty title is rejected. It omits error/response shape beyond that (e.g. what happens on an over-length title, what the caller gets back), so the mutation's side effects are only partly characterized.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action and its immediacy, the id source, and the validation rules. Nothing is repeated and the action is front-loaded.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no annotations or output schema, the definition covers what the agent needs to invoke it correctly: the id's provenance and the title constraints. The absence of any statement about return or failure behavior keeps it from being fully complete.

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 supply meaning, and it does: tabId is defined as the identifier reported by list_panes, and title is bounded by trimming and empty-rejection semantics. The schema's maxLength of 80 is left unmentioned, a minor remaining gap.

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 ('Change a tab's title') and scopes the effect ('applied live to the tab strip'). The explicit mention of 'tab' separates it from sibling renamers such as rename_pane and rename_project without needing to read either schema.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance by telling the agent to source the tabId from list_panes, which is the main prerequisite for calling this tool. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. when to use rename_pane or recolor_tab instead), so it is clear context but not a full when/when-not rubric.

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