renameAgentVersion

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds beyond this by specifying that the operation only changes the name/note, not the underlying version content, and that version history is otherwise immutable. This clarifies the behavioral scope of the mutation.

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 concise sentences convey the purpose and constraint, with a small tag. Every sentence contributes value, and the information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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/edit tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and mutation scope. It does not need to explain return values due to lack of output schema. The description could optionally mention prerequisites like having an existing version, but the schema and required parameters cover that; overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (agent_id, version_number, requestBody) with descriptions. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail, only re-stating that name and note are editable, which is already captured in the schema. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('saved version'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like deleteAgentVersion, restoreAgentVersion, and diffAgentVersion. It further specifies that only the name and note can change, reinforcing the tool's narrow scope.

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: use this to rename a saved agent version or edit its note, and explicitly states that version history is immutable otherwise, informing when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not name alternative tools for other operations (e.g., createAgentVersion for new versions), so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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