rename_computation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Rename') but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the rename is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., on linked assets), or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Rename an existing computation') and specifies the key parameter ('with a new display name'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited.

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 compensate. It mentions 'new display name' for the 'name' parameter, adding semantic context beyond the schema's generic 'Name' title. However, it doesn't explain 'computation_id' (e.g., format or source) or other details like character limits. Baseline is 3 due to partial compensation.

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 the action ('Rename') and target resource ('an existing computation'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_computation' or 'get_computation' by focusing on renaming. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'update_metadata' which might also modify computation properties, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing computation), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'update_metadata' for broader updates. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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