patch_workspaces__wid__rename

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Rename workspace' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the change is reversible, error conditions (e.g., duplicate names), or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation 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 description is extremely concise at just two words, front-loading the core action and resource with zero wasted language. This efficiency makes it easy to parse, though it trades brevity for completeness.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, or error handling. Given the complexity of modifying workspace names, more context is needed to use this tool effectively.

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 50% (only 'name' parameter has a description). The description 'Rename workspace' implies both 'wid' (workspace ID) and 'name' (new name) parameters but doesn't add details beyond what the schema provides. It compensates slightly by clarifying the tool's purpose, but doesn't fully address the undocumented 'wid' parameter.

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 'Rename workspace' clearly states the verb ('Rename') and resource ('workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'patch_workspaces__wid__members__id_' or 'patch_profile_name_many', which also modify workspace or profile names, leaving room for confusion about when to use this specific rename operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing workspace ID), exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'patch_profile_name_many' for profile renaming. This lack of context could lead to misuse in complex scenarios.

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