rename_deck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the side effect of renaming child subdecks, which is useful, but it omits critical behavior: whether the operation is reversible, what happens if the deck ID does not exist, any permission requirements, and the nature of the output. This is a mutation tool that remains under-specified.

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, tight sentence with zero fluff. It front-loads the action and scope, making it instantly parseable. All words contribute value, and it avoids redundancy with the schema or annotations. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains the core action but does not clarify parameter usage, expected side effects, error conditions, or the return value, even though an output schema exists. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly without additional inference.

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 by explaining parameters. It indirectly clarifies 'deck_id' (by deck ID) and implies 'new_name' (rename), but it does not address the 'output_file' parameter at all, which is optional and nullable. The description provides only partial parameter semantics and leaves a required-to-clarify field undocumented.

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 'Rename' and the resource 'an existing deck', and adds the scope 'and its child subdecks' with the identifier 'by deck ID'. This distinguishes it from create/delete operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'change_deck', which could overlap in intent. The purpose is unambiguous for an agent.

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 need to rename a deck (and its subdecks). However, it provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and does not mention alternative tools such as 'change_deck' for related modifications. Usage guidance is implicit rather than actionable.

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