update_agent_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the naming convention and reassignment purpose but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether old name is preserved, if updates are reversible, or if there are any restrictions on changing names frequently). This is adequate but leaves some questions unanswered.

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 well-structured with a clear heading, code examples, and bullet-point format requirements. Every sentence is purposeful and concise. No fluff.

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 low complexity (2 params, all required, simple types), schema coverage is 100%, and no output schema is needed, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: how to format the name and the purpose. It is complete for this tool.

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 baseline is 3. However, the description adds significant value by providing the exact naming format ('Long Name:shortname'), examples, and character length guidance, which the schema (with just a description string) lacks. This extra detail justifies a 4.

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 ('Update an agent's name') and specifies the resource ('agent'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_agent' or 'update' by focusing on renaming with a specific convention and providing examples that show it is about reassigning roles, not generic updates.

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 explicit usage examples and detailed format requirements, including what the newName must contain ('Long Name:shortname') and character length for short names. It also explains the purpose ('reassigned to different roles'), which helps the agent decide when to use this tool instead of 'create_agent' or 'update'.

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