pbi_rename_page

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

The description discloses that only the visible name changes while the internal ID persists, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it doesn't mention side effects, required permissions, or failure conditions. It adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. It wastes no words and is easy to scan.

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 simple rename operation, the description covers the core behavior and the critical invariant (internal ID unchanged). However, it omits any information about return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. Given its simplicity, it is minimally sufficient but could benefit from a bit more context.

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?

The description clarifies that 'new_name' sets the visible name, but the 'page' parameter is not explained (e.g., ID vs. name). The 'request_id' parameter is entirely undocumented. With zero schema description coverage, the description should provide more parameter context.

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 clearly states the tool's function: changing a page's visible name. It also clarifies that the internal ID remains unchanged, which distinguishes it from affecting structural identity. No ambiguity with sibling tools.

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 implies usage for renaming report pages. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but since no sibling tool performs renaming, the context is clear. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. other page operations.

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