rename_collection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It usefully discloses the ownership requirement and the trash exclusion, but says nothing about reversibility, error behavior on name collisions, or whether the rename affects references elsewhere.

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 sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the restriction immediately following. No filler or redundancy.

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?

A two-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than two sentences. The eligibility rule is covered, but parameter meaning, failure modes, and the result of the operation are all absent.

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 compensate and does not. It never mentions the collectionId or name parameters, nor the name constraints enforced by the schema (1–100 chars), leaving both parameters semantically 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Rename an owned collection') with a scope qualifier ('owned') that narrows which collections are eligible. This cleanly separates it from siblings such as rename_drawing, create_collection, and delete_collection.

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 a when-not condition: 'Trash cannot be renamed,' and 'owned' implies a permission precondition. It stops short of naming alternatives or explaining how to handle non-owned collections, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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