rename_variable_collection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies mutation through 'Rename' but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, error behavior for missing collections, name uniqueness, or what is returned. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 with no wasted words. Its structure is efficient and immediately readable. It is too terse to be truly helpful, but the conciseness dimension itself is satisfied.

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-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is substantially incomplete. It does not cover permissions, constraints, return behavior, or error cases. Only the core operation and one parameter's role are minimally conveyed.

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% for both parameters. The description identifies collectionId as the lookup key but does not explain its format, and it leaves the name parameter entirely uncharacterized beyond the verb 'Rename'. This does not compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb (Rename) and resource (variable collection), and scopes it by collectionId. This is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling rename_variable and rename_variable_mode by resource name. However, it does not explicitly name or route away from any sibling, so it falls short of the 5 benchmark.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It does not say when to choose rename_variable_collection versus rename_variable, rename_variable_mode, or create/delete collection. Usage must be entirely inferred.

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