skylight_rename_frame

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning the tool mutates state but is not destructive. The description only says 'rename', which implies a mutation, but adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or reversibility. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds no value beyond what annotations already convey.

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, which is appropriate in length. However, it lacks structure such as front-loaded key details or additional sentences explaining usage. It is concise but under-specified, so it earns a mid-range score.

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 tool has two parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'frame' is, what 'name' refers to, what 'frameId' identifies, or any expected return values. An agent would struggle to know how to correctly invoke this tool without additional context.

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%, meaning the parameters 'name' and 'frameId' are not documented in the schema. The description also does not explain what these parameters represent or how they should be used. This is a complete failure to compensate for the schema gap; the agent has no information about parameter meaning beyond their names.

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 a Skylight frame.' This is specific enough to convey the primary action. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'skylight_update_frame', which could also rename a frame, so it lacks sibling distinction. Overall, the purpose is clear but not uniquely scoped.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The description simply states the action without contextual cues for selection among the many sibling tools like 'update_frame' or 'list_frames'.

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