rename_variable_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the rename requires specific permissions, whether it is reversible, whether name collisions are allowed, or what the response contains — all material for a mutation tool.

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 verb front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in other dimensions.

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 3-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent cannot confirm scope, permissions, or failure behavior before invoking it.

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?

All three parameters (collectionId, modeId, name) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description only hints that 'name' is the new label. It does not explain that collectionId and modeId are identifiers or what format they take, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 ('a mode within a variable collection'), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as rename_variable, rename_variable_collection, set_variable_mode, or create_variable_mode, so an agent must infer which rename applies.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the mode must already exist), and never mentions alternatives like rename_variable_collection or set_variable_mode. The agent is left to infer routing from the name alone.

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