rename_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states a critical non-obvious behavior: the internal page name remains unchanged so bookmarks and navigation keep working. This adds meaningful context beyond what the name alone conveys, though it does not cover all potential behaviors (e.g., uniqueness of newName, failure modes, or authorization needs).

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 two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the action and includes only the essential behavioral caveat about the internal name. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a straightforward rename operation with three string parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core action and the most important contextual consequence (internal name unchanged). It could be slightly more complete by mentioning that the operation applies to the session identified by reportSessionId or that the page must exist, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently 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 schema already describes 'page' and 'newName' with clear explanations; the description reinforces that 'newName' becomes the tab title/displayName. However, it adds no new information about the undocumented 'reportSessionId' parameter, and the 67% schema coverage leaves that gap unfilled. Overall, the description does not significantly enhance the schema's parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Rename a report page' and clearly defines the operation as setting the tab title/displayName. It also distinguishes itself from related page tools by clarifying that the internal page name is unchanged, differentiating it from operations like set_page_tab_order or delete_page.

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 when to use the tool (when you want to change a page's visible tab title) and notes that bookmarks/navigation keep working, which hints at its safe usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like set_page_display or set_page_type, leaving the decision to the agent.

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