dev_rename_flow

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Rename', a mutation verb, but does not describe side effects, success conditions, error cases, or return values. The agent is left guessing about the tool's behavior.

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?

Extremely concise: a single sentence that captures the core purpose. It is front-loaded without wasted words. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without being verbose.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not explain return values. As a mutation operation, it should indicate if it returns the renamed flow or a confirmation. The simplicity of parameters doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral 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?

Schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Rename') and the resource ('a flow in a Lamatic project'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like dev_create_flow, dev_delete_flow, and dev_update_flow by focusing solely on renaming.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dev_update_flow. The usage is implied from the name, but lacking context for an AI agent to decide between rename and update.

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