source_rename

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it renames, but offers no information about side effects, permissions required, or constraints (e.g., whether the source can be renamed if it has dependencies). This is minimal disclosure.

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 extremely concise with two sentences total. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second lists parameters. No unnecessary words, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description is minimal and does not explain return values (though output schema exists). It lacks information about constraints, error conditions, or the effect on related resources. For a simple rename, it is marginally adequate but leaves gaps about behavioral details.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the parameter names alone provide no meaning. The description compensates by explicitly listing each parameter with a short explanation (e.g., 'Notebook UUID containing the source'). This adds necessary context beyond the schema.

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 'Rename' and the resource 'source in a notebook', which is specific and unequivocal. It distinguishes from sibling tools like source_delete or source_add by naming a distinct operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or contexts where renames are not allowed. Sibling tool names are available but the description itself lacks usage context.

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