RenameWorkflowDefinition

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 operation, but the description doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, whether the change is reversible, what validation occurs on the new name, or what happens to running instances. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 phrase that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.

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 required, or what the response contains. Given the complexity of renaming a workflow definition in a data development environment, more context is needed.

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 their descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('数据开发工作流' meaning 'data development workflow'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'RenameFunction', 'RenameNode', or 'RenameResource', which all 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing the workflow ID), when renaming is appropriate, or what happens to existing references after renaming. There's no comparison to sibling rename tools or other workflow modification tools.

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