rename_location

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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: Packet Tracer has no native rename call, pktctl edits the network as bytes and opens a temporary copy, and the user's original file is not written until saved with save_network. This aligns with the non-destructive annotation and gives the agent critical persistence information.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then explains the unusual behavior and required follow-up action. Every sentence contributes necessary information without 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?

With a fully described schema, clear annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the key behavioral and persistence details an agent needs. No important contextual gap remains.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning, making the baseline score of 3 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Rename a city, building, wiring closet or other location') and lists concrete location types. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as rename_device, which operates on a different resource.

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?

It provides a useful follow-up workflow instruction ('save with save_network and a path to keep the change'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rename_device or add_location. The usage context is implied rather than clearly bounded.

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