Rename workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing a non-obvious side effect: the new name is flagged as human-chosen and protected from a later brand scrape overwriting it. It still omits permissions, error cases, and whether the change is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the secondary consequence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is the absence of any authorization or failure-mode context, which is minor given the structured fields already present.

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%, so both parameters (workspaceId, name) are already documented in the schema, including the pointer to list_workspaces as the source of the id. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ("Rename a workspace") that cannot be confused with the other workspace siblings (create_workspace, delete_workspace, use_workspace, list_workspaces). The second sentence adds a distinguishing side effect that further separates it from a generic update.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the rename semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over e.g. create_workspace or delete_workspace, and no mention of prerequisites such as workspace ownership or existing membership.

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