rename_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It notes that the rename is 'immediate' and 'visible to every member', and restricts to chatId starting with c or r. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or error cases, but provides adequate basic behavior for a simple 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 sentences that cover purpose, effect, scope, and usage constraint. No redundant information, perfectly front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no output schema), the description reasonably explains the effect and constraints. It could mention the response type or error handling, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. No output schema exists, but the description covers the essential outcome.

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 both parameters described. The description adds extra value by specifying that chatId must start with 'c' or 'r', which is not in the schema. This helps the agent correctly format the chatId parameter beyond the schema's generic description.

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 that the new name is visible to all members, and distinguishes the tool by noting it works on groups/rooms with a specific chatId prefix, setting it apart from siblings like create_group.

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 the tool: renaming a group/chat with a specific chatId prefix. It mentions 'one rename per call' to guide usage, but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, which is acceptable as no sibling directly competes.

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