rename_worksheet

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

The destructiveHint: true annotation already indicates mutating behavior, but the description adds no extra context beyond the annotation. It does not disclose potential side effects like broken references or formula updates, and does not contradict the annotation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the core action. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation, though it sacrifices important context that would make it more informative.

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 lack of output schema, sparse annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, this description is severely under-specified. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or the impact on workbook data, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool safely.

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%, and the description offers no parameter-level details. While the parameter names (filepath, old_name, new_name) are self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, such as constraints or expected formats.

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 action ('Rename') and the resource ('worksheet in workbook'), making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like copy_worksheet or delete_worksheet beyond the inherent semantic distinction.

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 vs. alternatives. It omits prerequisites such as the worksheet existing or the new name being unique, and does not mention any exclusions or preferred contexts.

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