source_rename

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing effects. It states the core rename action but doesn't mention consequences like whether old references are updated, permission requirements, or reversibility—significant gaps for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that includes both the action and identifier semantics. It earns its place, though the phrase 'notebook/source name or ID' is structurally unclear and could be rephrased for better readability.

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 rename tool with no annotations and incomplete parameter descriptions, the overall context is insufficient. The agent knows what the tool does but lacks the behavioral and usage context needed to invoke it confidently in varied situations.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'Accepts a notebook/source name or ID' adds partial meaning for identifying the source/notebook, but new_title is left undescribed, and the exact relationship between notebook and source is unclear.

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 states a specific action ('Rename a source') with a clear resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like source_delete or notebook_rename. The verb and object are unambiguous, even if the subsequent identifier phrase is slightly awkward.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as source_add or notebook_rename. It neither specifies prerequisites nor mentions exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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