recipe_rename

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden and provides almost none: nothing about permissions, whether the rename affects existing runs or references, whether it can overwrite a conflicting name, or what is returned. For a mutation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing detail rather than reflecting deliberate compression.

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 a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description is far too thin — it leaves the targeting mechanism, side effects, and confirmation behavior entirely undocumented.

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 schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, but that is exactly the problem: a rename tool with no visible identifier param is inexplicable, and the description does not explain whether the target is implied (e.g., current/default recipe) or passed another way.

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 (rename) and resource (one of the user's saved recipes), which is unambiguous and does not collide with any sibling name. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about how the target recipe is identified, which is the main ambiguity for a rename operation.

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 versus recipe_save, recipe_install, or recipe_delete, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer that renaming is a distinct maintenance action from the surrounding recipe_* family.

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