rename_variable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Existing' hints that the variable must already exist, but it does not disclose what happens on a missing/duplicate variableId, whether the new name must be unique, permission requirements, or whether the rename propagates to bound nodes.

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?

A single tight sentence with the operation and identifier front-loaded and zero filler. Its brevity is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than maximal conciseness.

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 two-required-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves key gaps: the semantics of the 'name' argument, error behavior, and scope relative to mode/collection renames. It is not sufficient on its own for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names variableId as the identifier but adds no format details, and the required 'name' parameter — likely the new name — is only implied by the verb 'rename', with no constraints on length, uniqueness, or allowed characters.

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?

States a specific verb (rename) and resource (existing variable), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings like bulk_rename, rename_variable_mode, or rename_variable_collection, leaving the agent to infer scope from the name alone.

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 says what happens but never when to prefer this tool over bulk_rename or rename_variable_mode/rename_variable_collection. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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