rename_group

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: immediate rename, visibility to all members, constraint on chatId prefix, and single-rename limitation. This is sufficient for a non-destructive update tool.

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 sentences, each adding unique value: action+effect, scope, and constraint. No wasted words, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and two simple parameters, the description covers the key aspects: effect, scope, and usage constraint. Could mention potential naming restrictions (length, characters) or permission requirements, but overall complete enough.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra context for chatId by specifying the prefix constraint, which is not in the schema. The name parameter description matches the schema, so no additional value but acceptable.

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 action (renames) and the resource (LINE group/chat). It specifies the effect (immediately visible to all members) and distinguishes from siblings by limiting to groups/rooms with chatId starting with 'c' or 'r'.

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 explicit usage guidance: works only on groups/rooms with specific chatId prefixes and allows one rename per call. It does not list alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling context implies different actions like create_group or leave_group.

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