rename_cluster_pool

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the rename is destructive (replaces nodes) and requires a specific scope. This provides useful behavioral insight beyond the action itself.

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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing effect and parameter guidance. Every sentence is necessary and concise, with no redundant information.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the rename process and parameter sources. It could mention whether the operation is synchronous or what the response looks like, but overall it is fairly 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?

The schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying how to obtain the parameter values (service_id from list_services, pool from list_cluster_pools) and reinforcing the naming constraints for name.

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's action: 'Rename a worker node pool'. It identifies the specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_cluster_pool, update_cluster_pool, and delete_cluster_pool.

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 when to use (renaming a pool) and prerequisites (scope services:write, service_id from list_services, pool from list_cluster_pools). It also explains the effect (adds new pool, removes old, replaces nodes). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives.

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