pine_rename_script

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that source content is preserved, that name conflicts are refused rather than overwritten, and that the native ID/name readback is verified afterwards. That is meaningful behavior for a mutation tool whose annotations only say non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive.

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 dense sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is packed almost to the point of being terse, but every clause carries information.

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 seven-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers preconditions and post-write verification but omits what an agent sees on a precondition failure and how target_id/expected_layout_id participate. Adequate, with a clear gap around error behavior.

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?

Eight parameters at 25% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps the 'version/source/name preconditions' to expected_version, expected_saved_source_sha256, and expected_name, and 'exact' hints at strict matching, but it never explains the sha256 format requirement, the tab/layout scoping parameters, or the failure semantics of a mismatch.

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 and resource (rename a saved Pine script) plus a scoping qualifier ('one exact saved'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like pine_save_as or pine_save_as/rename flows, so an agent must infer which mutation path to take.

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 phrase 'after version/source/name preconditions' implies that the caller must have already fetched current state, but it never states when to choose this tool over pine_save_as or pine_list_scripts, nor what to do when preconditions fail. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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