rename_tag

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, open-world, non-read-only), the description discloses the non-atomic behavior across items, the merging of tags, and the skip-on-re-run semantics. This adds substantial context without contradicting any annotation flags.

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 compact and well-structured. The first sentence states the core function, the second explains the mechanism and scope, and the third covers failure behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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's complexity (2 simple parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description fully covers purpose, mechanism, alternatives, failure handling, and idempotency. There are no critical gaps that would hinder an agent from using it correctly.

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. It clearly explains that old_tag is removed and new_tag is added on each item, merging with existing tags. While it doesn't specify constraints like case sensitivity or empty strings, the roles of the two parameters are sufficiently clarified for this simple string-based tool.

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 begins with a specific verb 'Rename' and a clear resource: 'a tag across every item in the library that carries it'. It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools by noting 'not just one item -- see add_tags/remove_tags/set_tags for single-item edits', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use the tool (single-item edits) and directs users to alternatives. It also provides re-run guidance in case of partial failure, clarifying the appropriate usage pattern for retrying.

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