Rename Address Book Entry

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the replacement semantics are partly pre-signalled; the description reinforces this by saying the current label is replaced. It adds genuinely new operational context the annotations do not carry: the confirm:true requirement and the 1-credit cost. It stops short of describing failure behavior for unknown addresses.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the edge case and the two operational requirements. Nothing is wasted and no sentence is redundant.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, edge case, confirmation gate, and cost. The only real gap is behavior on a missing or invalid address, plus any indication of what a successful response contains.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the empty-string-clears behavior and the confirm requirement. The description restates these rather than adding syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: changing the label on an address already in the address book, and explicitly notes it replaces the current one. This clearly distinguishes it from octav_add_address_book_entries and octav_remove_address_book_entry without opening either schema.

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 phrase 'already in the address book' implicitly scopes usage to existing entries and rules out the add tool. However, no sibling is named explicitly and there is no statement about what to do if the address does not exist.

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