Rename Page

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

The description does not go beyond stating the basic operation. No annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint) are present, so the description carries full burden but provides no extra behavioral details (e.g., whether renaming affects references, if it is reversible).

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, short sentence. It is concise but lacks important context. It is not overly verbose, but may be too terse for an agent to fully understand the operation.

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 simple rename operation with two parameters fully described in the schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention the return behavior (e.g., no output schema) or edge cases (e.g., what happens if page not found).

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Rename an existing page' clearly states the action and resource. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'pbir_rename_bookmark' or 'pbir_set_page_visibility', though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pbir_create_page, pbir_duplicate_page). No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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