Rename a tab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. 'Rename a tab by tabId' discloses the basic action but omits behavioral details such as side effects, permissions, idempotency, error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single short sentence, appropriately sized for a simple operation. However, it is under-specified and does not fully earn its place, as it largely restates the tool's name.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of required parameters like 'title' and 'documentId', nor what happens after renaming. The operation is simple, but the guidance is too thin for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is only 25% (only 'account' has a description). The description only mentions tabId, failing to explain that 'title' is the new tab name or that 'documentId' identifies the containing document. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage; it adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter 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 'Rename a tab by tabId' clearly states the action (rename) and the resource (a tab), with the key identifier (tabId). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_tab, add_tab, and list_tabs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing its use relative to other tab operations.

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