source_rename

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It states 'rename' (mutation) but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or error handling. The existence of an output schema is acknowledged but not 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?

The description is concise: a single sentence stating the purpose followed by a structured parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action, but the parameter list is slightly redundant with the schema, though it adds context.

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 tool, the description covers purpose and parameters minimally but misses behavioral context (idempotency, failure modes, return type) and prerequisites (e.g., existence of notebook/source). The output schema exists but is not leveraged to describe the response.

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 0%, so the description adds value by naming parameters and giving brief explanations (e.g., 'Notebook UUID containing the source'). However, it lacks details on constraints (e.g., title length limits, UUID format) and does not explain the meaning beyond what is obvious from the names.

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 'source in a notebook', distinguishing it from sibling tools like source_add, source_delete, and source_describe. It specifies the context and action concisely.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., source_add for adding, source_delete for removing). No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage without direction.

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