rename_namespace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it moves all memories, implying that the operation may have a wide impact, but it does not state whether it is reversible, if it requires special permissions, or what happens to the old namespace. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate 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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and outcome. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 tool performs a rename that moves all memories, the description is adequate but lacks information about potential side effects (e.g., if the new namespace already exists, whether it's reversible, or whether it's a destructive operation). The absence of an output schema is fine, but the mutation impact is not fully contextualized.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond implying that the old_namespace and new_namespace are the key arguments. 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 action (rename), the resource (namespace), and the effect (moving all its memories to the new name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_namespace or namespaces, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies that this tool is for renaming a namespace and that it affects all memories, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like delete_namespace or namespaces. The context is clear, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative conditions.

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