profile_rename

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the name persists across restarts and that saved artifacts move with the profile, which are important side effects. However, it does not mention error conditions, permissions, or reversibility, so it is informative but not exhaustive.

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 sentences with no fluff. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds key behavioral context without 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?

For a simple rename tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and two important behavioral aspects. It is sufficient for an agent to understand how to call it, though it does not cover edge cases like non-existent profiles or naming constraints.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema ('from' and 'to'), and the description provides a concrete example that clarifies expected formats. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema, but the example helps grounding.

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 tool renames browser profiles, with a concrete example ('profile-2' -> 'work'). It identifies the resource (browser profile) and the action (rename), distinguishing it from sibling profile_use which selects profiles rather than renames them.

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 usage for renaming automatically named profiles, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. It provides context (names stick, artifacts move) but lacks direct guidance on selection criteria.

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