update_dataset

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return value ("The Dataset, or an error message") and confirms this is a mutation, but it says nothing about permissions required, name-uniqueness constraints, whether an invalid name produces an error, or whether the change is reversible. Useful but incomplete for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 content is short and front-loaded with the key verb, but it is raw Sphinx docstring boilerplate (":param", ":returns:") pasted in rather than written as prose for an agent. Every sentence carries information, yet the formatting is awkward and the return-value line would read better as a sentence.

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 two-parameter rename with no output schema, the description covers the essential pieces: what changes, what it returns, and where test-case edits belong. Missing are the operational details a mutation tool with no annotations should state, such as error conditions and permission requirements.

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, and it does name both parameters. However, ":param dataset_id: The Dataset's id." merely restates the schema title, and ":param name: The new name." adds only the minor clarification that the value replaces the current name. No format, length, or validation semantics are given.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Renames a Dataset." It also delimits scope by directing test-case changes to the test case tools, which separates it from siblings like update_test_case, add_test_cases, and copy_test_cases. It falls short of a 5 only because the name (update_dataset) is broader than the stated behavior and nothing addresses other dataset fields.

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?

"Change its test cases with the test case tools" is an explicit when-not/alternative pointer, which is exactly the kind of routing an agent needs given the dense sibling set (update_test_case, add_test_cases, delete_dataset). There is no statement of preconditions, such as whether the dataset must exist or whether the caller needs ownership, and no explicit when-to-use beyond the implicit rename case.

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