rename_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action 'rename.' It does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is reversible, uniqueness constraints on new_name, or failure behavior for nonexistent profiles.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, and there is no redundant text. However, brevity comes at the cost of substance, so it is merely minimally structured rather than well-crafted.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, so the description should compensate; it does not. An agent cannot confidently determine the meaning of type or the expected result/errors from this definition alone.

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 explain the three parameters. It defines none of them: name, type, and new_name are left for the agent to guess, and type is especially ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb ('rename') and resource ('user profile'), which clearly sets it apart from sibling operations like create_profile, delete_profile, or list_profiles. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with normalize_profile, but the rename operation is unambiguous enough for selection.

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?

No guidance on when to use rename_profile rather than create_profile, delete_profile, or normalize_profile. There is no mention of prerequisites such as the profile existing, whether the rename is applied to an active setup, or how name/type identify the target.

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