set_take_name

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is already covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default-to-active-take resolution rule and the non-obvious note that an item displays its active take's name (so renaming an inactive take may not visibly change the item). It stops short of noting side effects on comping or what happens with an out-of-range index.

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 action, then the default-scoping rule, then the return fields. Nothing redundant; the 'Returns:' line separates output info cleanly.

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 no output schema, the description usefully inlines the return fields (take_index, name). For a four-parameter mutation on a nested item/take hierarchy, it covers the essential indexing story, though it never describes failure behavior for invalid indices or whether the take must exist.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains the subtle part well – take_index being optional and defaulting to the active take – but leaves track_index, item_index, and name entirely to inference from their conventional names. Partial compensation for a four-parameter tool.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Rename a take'. It also disambiguates the scope by stating the default target is the active take, which distinguishes it from a bulk rename. It never explicitly contrasts with the similarly named sibling set_track_name, but the take/track distinction is unambiguous from the wording.

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 implicitly tells the agent when the optional parameter matters ('the active one when take_index is left out'), which is genuine when-to guidance for the common case. It gives no exclusions, no note about when to prefer get_takes/set_active_take first, and no prerequisites such as the item needing to exist.

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