ticktick_rename_tag

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that renaming updates all tasks with the old tag to the new name (clarifying the scope of change) and mentions the authentication requirement ('Requires v2 API authentication'). Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict, so no annotation contradiction exists.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: three brief sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important behavioral and authentication details. Every sentence adds essential information without any waste 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation operation with side effects), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, behavioral impact, and authentication. Annotations provide safety hints, and an output schema exists (though not detailed in the context), reducing the need to explain return values. However, it could briefly mention idempotency or error cases for full completeness.

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?

The description does not add meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage but defines parameters 'old_name' and 'new_name' clearly with titles and descriptions. Since the schema coverage is low, the description could compensate by explaining parameter roles or constraints, but it does not, resulting in a baseline score of 3 as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Rename a tag') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ticktick_create_tag', 'ticktick_delete_tag', 'ticktick_update_tag', and 'ticktick_merge_tags' by focusing on renaming rather than creating, deleting, updating other properties, or merging. The verb 'rename' is precise and the resource 'tag' is explicitly identified.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when needing to rename a tag, with the implication that it affects all associated tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using 'ticktick_update_tag' for other modifications or 'ticktick_merge_tags' for combining tags), which prevents a perfect score.

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