alter_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the mutation types but omits permissions, reversibility, conflict behavior for new_name, or whether field_length is limited to text fields beyond a schema note.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to scan, though its extreme brevity leaves some important context unstated.

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?

Despite an output schema and full parameter descriptions, this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no usage or safety guidance. The description does not say when to use it, what it requires, or what side effects it has, so it is not complete enough for confident 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 100%, and the description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting for all six parameters.

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 ('Rename') and resource ('field'), plus alias/length alteration variants. It is clearly distinct from add_field/delete_field siblings, but does not explicitly name alternatives or scope conditions.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to siblings such as add_field, delete_field, or calculate_field. The description only says what the tool can do, leaving the agent to infer context.

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