rename_blueprint_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Rename' without indicating if it is destructive, whether renamed functions require recompilation, or if references are updated. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. Conciseness should not come at the cost of essential information; here it omits needed details.

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 3 required parameters and no return details in the description. Although an output schema exists, it is not provided, and the description does not explain the result or side effects. For a rename operation, more context (e.g., success indication, error conditions) would be helpful.

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%. The description does not explain what each parameter means beyond their names (blueprint_name, old_function_name, new_function_name). No formats, constraints, or relationships are described.

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 'Rename a function in a Blueprint.' states the action and resource clearly, but does not differentiate from other rename tools like 'rename_asset' or 'rename_widget', nor from sibling blueprint function tools like 'create_blueprint_function' or 'delete_blueprint_function'.

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 this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no examples of valid function names or scope. The description provides no usage context.

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