rename_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states that only the display name changes, that the saved/unsaved state is unaffected, that the name is HTML-sanitized server-side, and that it must be non-empty. These are concrete behavioral traits beyond the basic rename operation.

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 tight and well-structured: one summary line, a two-sentence behavioral clarification, and a two-line Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple two-parameter rename tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter meanings, and constraints. The only minor gap is the absence of return-value or error-condition details, but nothing essential is missing for making a correct call.

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%, but the description compensates by defining both arguments: 'model_hash: Hash of the model to rename' and 'name: New display name.' This gives the agent precise meaning for each parameter, plus the text adds the non-empty constraint on name.

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 'Rename a model,' a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'Changes only the display name; the model's saved/unsaved state is untouched.' This makes it clear this tool is not save_model or unsave_model, which are present in the sibling list.

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 explicitly provides a when-not-to-use signal: 'the model's saved/unsaved state is untouched (use save_model to file it into a project).' This directs the agent to the correct alternative and clarifies the exact boundary of this tool's responsibility.

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