RenameFunction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '重命名' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether the rename is reversible, what happens to references to the old function name, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after renaming, whether there are side effects, what permissions are needed, or what format the response takes. The agent must guess about the tool's behavior and outcomes.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (ProjectId, Id, Name) with Chinese descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation entirely through the schema.

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 clearly states the verb ('重命名' meaning 'rename') and resource ('数据开发函数' meaning 'data development function'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'RenameNode', 'RenameResource', or 'RenameWorkflowDefinition' which perform similar rename operations on different resource types.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing the function ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from other rename operations in the system. The agent must infer usage 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.