ass_rename_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the default line-rewrite side effect, the name-collision constraint, the doc_id fallback to the current document, and the return shape. It does not describe error behavior or prerequisites, but the critical mutation semantics are clear.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and then uses compact Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information without waste.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers all parameters, the key side effect, defaults, and constraints. Sibling routing is absent, but no information needed to invoke the tool correctly 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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It documents all four parameters with meaning beyond the schema: old_name is an existing style name, new_name must not collide, doc_id accepts None for the current document, and update_lines controls the rewrite behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: rename a style and by default rewrite lines referencing it. Distinguishes the operation through its documented side effect, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as ass_update_style or ass_copy_style.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and the stated default for update_lines, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use condition, and no comparison to alternative style-editing tools.

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