rename_rack_macro

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior. Beyond that, the description adds genuine value: it discloses that the tool rechecks the full rack snapshot and confirms the observed name after writing, which characterizes the verification behavior an agent should expect from a mutating tool.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Slightly dense phrase 'unambiguous macro parameter layout' but every clause carries information.

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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the plan/execute nature and post-write verification while annotations carry the safety profile and the schema fully documents inputs. Adequate, though it could say more about the confirmation-token handshake between plan and write.

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 all eight parameters (including dryRun, planHash, confirmationToken) are already documented in the schema and the description needs only to add meaning. It does not add syntax detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Plan or rename one exact rack macro', making clear this both previews and performs a rename. It is distinguishable from siblings like rename_rack_chain or map_rack_macro_to_parameter, though it doesn't name them for contrast.

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?

Provides a precondition ('when Live exposes an unambiguous macro parameter layout and name readback') that hints at when renaming is safe, but offers no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives. The plan-vs-write workflow is implied rather than spelled out.

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