rename_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the default behavior of renaming data blocks, which is useful, but it doesn't mention side effects, undo behavior, or whether references are updated. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single concise sentence in Chinese. It's front-loaded with the core action and the key default. No wasted words, though it could benefit from more detail while remaining concise.

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 rename tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too sparse. An agent would not know the implications of renaming data blocks, whether it's reversible, or what happens to linked objects. It's not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only implicitly hints at the rename_data default through the phrase '默认连同其数据块', but it doesn't explicitly describe the name, new_name, or rename_data fields. The boolean rename_data is the most critical parameter and is left unexplained beyond that hint.

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 states a clear verb and resource: rename an object, with the notable default behavior of also renaming its data blocks. This distinguishes it from pure object operations, though it doesn't explicitly separate it from batch_rename, which is a sibling. The purpose is specific enough for most agents.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for a single object, or when to prefer batch_rename, or any conditions under which to avoid it. The context is entirely absent.

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