rename_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that a mutation occurs. It does not state whether renames propagate to references, whether reserved/duplicate names are rejected, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, so it is not verbose. But brevity here stems from under-specification rather than tight writing, so it earns only a middling score.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two fully undocumented parameters needs substantially more description to be safely callable. Nothing about return value, failure modes, or naming constraints is covered anywhere in the structured fields.

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 0% for two required, undocumented parameters. The description never clarifies what 'path' means (a full instance path string? a dotted hierarchy?) or any constraints on 'newName' (length, uniqueness, allowed characters). With no compensating detail, an agent must guess at the input format.

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 and resource ('Rename an instance'), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings that also affect instance names, notably set_property (which could rename via the Name property) or duplicate_instance. The purpose is clear but sibling-blind.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use rename_instance versus alternatives like set_property with a Name attribute, nor any prerequisites (e.g., a locked or read-only instance, ownership constraints). The agent is given no context for tool selection.

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