rename_mysql_database

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It implies a mutation but says nothing about irreversibility, required privileges, impact on existing users/privileges/connections, or what happens if the target name already exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally clean. It is arguably under-sized for a mutation tool, but nothing in it is wasted or buried.

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 destructive-ish rename operation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits the operational detail an agent needs: permissions required, whether the rename is reversible, and what the result looks like. The description is far thinner than the tool's risk profile warrants.

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 the schema notes the subtlety that new_name is a suffix without the cPanel prefix while old_name is a full name. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 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 ('Rename') and resource ('MySQL database'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from create_mysql_database, delete_mysql_database, and rename_mysql_user. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., database must exist and be idle), and no mention of when to prefer a create/dump-and-restore approach instead. The agent is left to infer all invocation context from the tool name alone.

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