object_rename

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose supported/unsupported types and the object_type disambiguation rule, but it says nothing about the effects of renaming: whether references are updated, name validation rules, conflict behavior when object_type is omitted, or whether the operation 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds distinct information: the operation, the supported types, the unsupported types, and the disambiguation tip. No filler or redundancy.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is reasonably adequate for straightforward rename calls. However, it lacks behavioral details such as what happens when object_type is omitted and a naming conflict exists, side effects on object references, and any return/error behavior. An agent may be surprised by edge cases.

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 100% and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema; 'Use object_type to disambiguate naming conflicts' largely restates the schema's note for object_type. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Rename an IC-CAP object.' It further enumerates the supported types and explicitly lists unsupported types, making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishing it from other object_* operations.

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 supported and not-supported type lists, giving agents a clear when-to-use / when-not-to-use boundary. It also instructs to use object_type to disambiguate naming conflicts. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or explain what to use for unsupported types, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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