reach_renameATagV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does an excellent job by explicitly stating two important side effects: contacts assigned to the tag remain unaffected, and duplicate names are rejected. This goes beyond just saying 'Rename a tag' and informs the agent about the tool's non-destructive nature and validation behavior, which is critical for a mutation 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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, and the two subsequent sentences each add necessary behavioral information. No words are wasted, and the structure is easy to scan. This is exactly the right size for this simple tool.

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 rename operation with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects and constraints. It explains side effects on contacts and the uniqueness rule, which are the key contextual details an agent needs. It could potentially mention the result or return format, but that is not required given the absence of an output schema.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra context for the 'value' parameter by explaining the uniqueness constraint within a profile, which directly affects how the agent should set that parameter. This elevates the score above the baseline.

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 identifies the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Rename a tag.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from the many sibling tag-related tools, such as assigning contacts, deleting tags, or listing tags. The follow-up sentences add relevant scope, confirming the tool is purely for renaming.

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 makes the primary use case obvious — renaming a tag. It provides clear context by stating that tag names are unique within a profile, implying a validation constraint. However, it does not explicitly describe when this tool should be preferred over alternatives like deleting and recreating a tag, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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