rename_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'validates name availability and handles the rename process', which adds useful behavioral context beyond the basic 'rename' action. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., downtime, URL changes), permissions required, or error handling, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured into three sentences: purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter/behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage guidance but lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects, permissions, or return values. For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, it's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions 'Requires both current app name and desired new name', which aligns with the schema but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'rename' and the resource 'Heroku application', specifying it's for existing apps. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_app' (for new apps) and 'transfer_app' (for ownership changes), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 states when to use this tool: 'when a user needs to: 1) Change an app's name, or 2) Resolve naming conflicts.' It provides clear use cases and distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on renaming rather than creating or transferring apps.

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