rename_initiative

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the failure mode ('fails if the new name already exists'), the blast radius of the cloud path ('team-wide and affects everyone'), and the irreversibility risk ('cannot be undone in the wrong one'). It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or whether a local rename is reversible, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the local-vs-cloud distinction in a single compact block with no filler. The cloud clause is somewhat detailed and partially overlaps the schema, but every sentence carries a distinct constraint.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers behavior, side effects, failure mode, and the risky cloud path well. The remaining gap is auth/permission context and local-rename reversibility, which are minor here.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the cloud semantics. The description reinforces the 'ALSO' behavior and the name-required-with-multiple-clouds rule, but this largely restates the schema rather than adding new syntax or format detail. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Rename an initiative') and even specifies the scope of what moves: nodes, edges, and sharing policy. An agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like merge_initiative or delete_initiative.

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?

Explicitly states the default behavior ('Local by default'), the condition for the alternative ('Pass cloud="<name>" to ALSO rename it in that shared cloud'), and a hard prerequisite ('with several clouds configured the name is required'). Both when-to-use and when-name-is-required are covered.

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