clean_rename_columns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that a new source is produced and that columns are renamed per a mapping, which covers the primary behavioral trait. However, it does not mention validation, preservation of unmapped columns, or error handling.

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, direct sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it sacrifices some explanatory detail for brevity.

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?

The description captures the core operation and hints at non-mutating behavior via 'new source'. Given the output schema exists, return values are covered, but edge cases and parameter semantics beyond mapping are missing. For a straightforward rename tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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?

The description explains the mapping parameter format (`{old: new}`), but it does not elaborate on source_id or alias. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates, leaving the other parameters underdocumented.

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 that the tool creates a new source with columns renamed per a mapping, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling cleaning operations like clean_drop_columns or clean_cast by focusing on renaming.

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 when column renaming is needed, but it provides no explicit guidelines on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites. The purpose is clear, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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