重命名会话

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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and open-world, so safety and repeat-call semantics are covered. The description adds the useful context that the change is user-visible and equivalent to the sidebar rename. It does not disclose whether the name must be unique, what happens on collision, or the response shape.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the action plus the UI equivalence are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized but unambitious.

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 mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials and annotations carry the mutation profile. However, gaps remain on naming constraints and failure behavior, which matter for an idempotent renamed operation.

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 100%, with both 'name' and 'session' documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, constraint, or identifier-resolution detail beyond the schema.

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 (rename) and resource (session) in one sentence, and ties it to a concrete, recognizable UI action in the pi-web sidebar. It does not differentiate from siblings such as piweb_auto_name_session, which also assigns names, leaving a small ambiguity.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to prefer this tool over piweb_auto_name_session or how renaming interacts with session lifecycle operations.

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