roiq_rename_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the rename action without explaining side effects (e.g., whether the old title is overwritten permanently), permission requirements, or reversibility. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it may be too minimal, lacking structural elements like bullet points or examples, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 no output schema, zero parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. It omits return value details, idempotency, and potential constraints. The description does not achieve completeness for the tool's complexity.

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, but it does not. It mentions renaming 'by its id' but provides no additional meaning for the 'id' or 'title' parameters beyond what is obvious from the schema. The description adds no semantic value to the parameters.

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 verb 'Renombra' and the resource 'item' with specific types (página/tablero/tabla/pizarra/enlace), making the purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'roiq_update_card' and 'roiq_update_proposal' which handle different modifications.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., item must exist), scope limitations, or situations where renaming is inappropriate. No explicit conditions or exclusions are given.

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