rename_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it's Pro+ only, uses POST, changes both name and version, and can cause 409 collision. However, it does not describe the response format or any side effects (e.g., on deployments). Still, key behavioral traits are covered.

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 three sentences long, with each sentence adding value: purpose, use case, and differentiation. It is well-structured and front-loaded but could be slightly more concise (e.g., merging the first two sentences).

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description covers licensing, collision behavior, and distinguishes from related tools. It could mention what the API returns (e.g., the renamed prompt) but is otherwise sufficient for a straightforward rename operation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context about typo fixes and collision but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Change' and resource 'existing prompt's name + version', and distinguishes from update_prompt by noting that update_prompt never changes name/version. The example and explicit reference to POST /v1/prompts/:id/rename provide specific purpose clarity.

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 explicitly says 'Main use is typo fixes' and contrasts with update_prompt, explaining that rename is a separate tool for semantic separation. It also mentions collision with existing (name, version) results in 409 error, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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