Rename Source Filter

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

The description reiterates that it performs a set/rename operation, consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). However, it adds no extra behavioral context such as error conditions, side effects, or permissions beyond what the annotations already convey. It does not contradict annotations, but the description does not contribute additional transparency.

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 sentence that is extremely concise and to the point. It uses minimal words to convey the action without any fluff or redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it an excellent model of brevity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (a straightforward rename operation), the description is adequate. The schema fully documents parameters, annotations cover safety profile, and no output schema exists. The description covers the essential purpose; any additional detail (e.g., error handling) would be nice but is not necessary for this low-complexity operation. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description in the schema (e.g., 'Current name of the filter', 'New name for the filter'). The description does not add any further meaning or clarify relationships between parameters. Since schema already covers semantics, a baseline 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 verb (Sets) and resource (name of a source filter) and explicitly notes the action is to rename. It distinguishes from sibling tools like obs-set-source-filter-settings and obs-remove-source-filter by focusing solely on the name attribute. The purpose is unmistakable and specific.

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 implies the tool is used when a filter needs to be renamed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. No mention of related tools or preconditions, but the tool name itself makes the intended usage obvious, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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