Label an executor (renames its assigned object)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the exact command sent, the broadcast side effect (renames the object everywhere it appears, including other executors), failure-before-send semantics, no selection/programmer impact, verify's precise read-back scope, and that mutations are serialised but not isolated from other clients.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the critical renaming caveat, and every sentence conveys operational meaning. It is dense and runs long for a four-parameter tool, but little is expendable.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: command semantics, side effects, failure conditions, verify behavior, and concurrency caveats. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema does not: it explains what verify actually reads back (executor's displayed name, assigned object, and the assigned object's own Name), reinforcement that page/executor must exist, and the broadcast consequence of the label parameter's effect.

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 ('Label the object assigned to the executor at Page <p>.<e>') and immediately clarifies the surprising semantics — that on grandMA3 2.5.1 this RENAMES THE ASSIGNED SEQUENCE, not the executor. That distinction separates it from siblings like gma3_executor_settings and gma3_assign_to_executor.

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?

Gives clear preconditions and exclusions: fails before sending anything when the page does not exist or the executor is empty, and does not change selection/programmer or send a playback keyword. It does not, however, name an alternative tool for renaming the underlying object directly, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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