set_name

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

Annotations already flag it as a non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent mutation, and the description adds genuinely useful context on top: the change lands in the session overlay and never touches the binary, the bulk path is evaluated first, and a conflicting name is rejected unless force is set. The dry_run default restates the schema, but the overlay/conflict semantics are real added value. No output behavior is described.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the scope constraint front-loaded. The phrase "checked first" is slightly cryptic about what it is checked against, a minor clarity cost in an otherwise tight definition.

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 5-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral envelope: overlay-only effect, conflict handling, and preview-by-default. The one meaningful gap is that it says nothing about what a call returns or how failures report, which matters slightly more given there is no 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description does add a precedence hint ("names=... checked first") that the schema does not express, but it adds little else about individual parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb+resource ("Name a function or data global") and immediately bounds the scope with "in the session overlay, never the binary," which is the key distinction an agent needs. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like set_comment or set_type, but the naming action is unambiguous enough to tell apart.

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?

It supplies the operative conditions for a successful call — a taken name requires force=true, and the operation previews until dry_run=false — so the agent knows the preconditions. However, it never states when to choose this tool over set_comment/set_type or when to prefer the singular name vs the bulk names path beyond a bare "instead".

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