whiteboard_rename

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the tool supports version validation (optimistic concurrency), but does not explain what happens on a version mismatch or what permissions are needed.

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 clauses with no padding, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the zero schema coverage it needs to compensate for.

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 return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with 0% parameter description coverage and no permission/auth or conflict-handling detail, the description is too thin to fully guide correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only alludes to version checking, without explaining expectedVersion semantics on mismatch, the meaning of boardId, or the title length constraints (minLength 1, maxLength 120) enforced by the schema. This leaves most parameter behavior undocumented.

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 and resource (重命名/rename a whiteboard), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like whiteboard_create, whiteboard_delete_board, and whiteboard_duplicate. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate against similarly mutation-oriented siblings such as whiteboard_native_edit, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The phrase '支持版本校验' merely hints that version checking is available, without saying when an agent should supply expectedVersion versus omit it, or what to do when a rename is not appropriate.

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