Rename group

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

Annotations already indicate write behavior (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds one important behavioral constraint: the default group cannot be renamed. This is useful context beyond the annotations, but not extensive.

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 concise sentences. The primary action is front-loaded ('Rename an athlete group.'), and the second sentence adds a critical constraint. No wasted words.

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 with 2 well-documented parameters and annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a key restriction. No output schema is needed for a straightforward rename, though it might be slightly more complete if it clarified the meaning of 'default group' or success/failure behavior.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Group (tag) ID' and 'The new group name'). The description itself does not add parameter-level detail beyond what schema already provides, so 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Rename') and resource ('athlete group'), providing a specific verb+resource pair. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like tp_create_group and tp_delete_group by indicating the rename operation. The added constraint about the default group further clarifies 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 implies when to use (rename an existing group) and provides a when-not condition ('The default group cannot be renamed'), but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or context relative to other group tools. No sibling tool performs rename, so alternatives aren't needed, but the guidance is minimal.

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