Rename a tag

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: existing contact assignments are preserved, and duplicate names are rejected. It does not cover every edge case, but it adds useful operational context beyond structured metadata.

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?

Two short sentences with the main action front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence earns its place by adding either the core purpose or an important constraint.

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 three-parameter rename with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the purpose, the preservation side effect, and the uniqueness rejection rule. No output schema exists, but the absence of return-value explanation is a minor gap for this simple mutation.

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 schema already covers all three parameters, but the description adds semantics: 'contact assignments unaffected' clarifies the effect of renaming, and 'names are unique within a profile' clarifies the relationship between value and profileUuid. This goes beyond the schema's terse 'New tag name' and 'Profile uuid 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 opens with 'Rename a tag,' a specific verb and resource, and adds context that contacts are unaffected and names are unique within a profile. It is clearly not a delete, create, or assignment operation, though it does not explicitly call out sibling alternatives.

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 purpose is self-explanatory and the uniqueness/affected-contacts details imply the operation on an existing tag. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related tag operations such as reach_deleteATagV1 or reach_createOrFindTagsV1.

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