rename_sheet

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

Annotations only provide idempotentHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it modifies the analysis definition and automatically creates a backup before making changes. It still omits permissions requirements, backup/restore details, and output behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with purpose front-loaded, followed by a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in the description. The description covers mutation risk and automatic backup, and the schema covers required parameters. It omits minor prerequisites like analysis state or backup retrieval, but is adequate for a simple rename operation.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents analysis_id, sheet_id, and new_name. The description adds no additional parameter meaning such as naming constraints or format expectations, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('an existing sheet in a QuickSight analysis'), scoping the operation precisely. It is inherently distinguishable from sibling sheet operations such as add_sheet, delete_sheet, and replicate_sheet, even though it does not name them explicitly.

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 implies usage when an existing sheet needs renaming, but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool comparisons. The context is clear enough to infer the tool's role among siblings.

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