rename_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the operation is a non-committal proposal requiring a separate confirmation, and warns that it renames the generated key enum and value struct, breaking existing references. It omits permission requirements and reversibility of the proposal, minor gaps.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the required follow-up, ending with the critical side-effect warning. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mechanics (proposal flow) and the key risk (broken references). It could note whether the pending proposal can be inspected or cancelled, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, and both parameters ('old_name' as current PascalCase name, 'new_name' as new PascalCase name) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Propose renaming a record') and immediately clarifies that it does not rename directly but creates a pending proposal. This distinguishes it from the destructive 'remove_record' and the direct 'set_record', though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is meant to be preferred over.

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 gives the clear two-step workflow: propose here, then 'call resolve_proposal to confirm'. That is actionable routing guidance. It stops short of stating when to use this over siblings like 'set_record', so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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