update_resource_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the function without revealing side effects, prerequisites, or safety implications. For instance, it doesn't mention that the resource must exist, or whether the update is reversible.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. However, it is in Chinese, which may limit accessibility for English-only contexts.

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 operation with three well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks detail about return values (no output schema), error conditions, or how the tool interacts with related resources. No output schema is present, so some information about what happens after update would be helpful.

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 already provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (group_id, node_id, new_name), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('更新', update) and the resource ('教育资源名称', educational resource name). It's specific and directly conveys the tool's operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_resource_sort, which also update a resource property.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this tool only changes the name, not other attributes, or that it requires the resource to exist. Sibling tools like 'delete_course_resource' or 'update_resource_sort' are not mentioned in context.

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