rename_variable

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds that the variable ID is unchanged and existing bindings keep working, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also specifies the return format.

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 two sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose and example, then adds key behavioral notes. Every word earns 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?

Given the two required parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: purpose, example, behavioral note, and return type. It is complete for a straightforward rename tool, though could mention any prerequisites (e.g., variable must exist).

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example for the 'name' parameter ('color/brand') and implies no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. The 'variableId' parameter is not further elaborated.

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 'rename' and resource 'variable', provides a concrete example ('color/primary' → 'color/brand'), and explains that the variable ID remains unchanged. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that modify or delete variables.

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 usage for renaming without affecting bindings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_variable for new variables, delete_variable for removal). No exclusions or when-not cases are provided.

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