sage_rename

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the tool only changes the display name and optional bio, while the permanent registration name and agent_id never change. It also clarifies that omitting boot_bio preserves the existing bio. This is thorough, though it doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., invalid name format) or network effects.

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 concise at four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Rename this agent'). Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, explaining the benefit, clarifying self-only scope, and detailing bio behavior. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 simple tool (2 parameters, no output schema) and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers the tool's effect, scope (self-only), persistence of identity, and bio handling. No missing information is needed for an agent to correctly invoke 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. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema; it repeats that omitting boot_bio preserves the current bio and passing it replaces it, which is already stated in the schema's parameter description. No additional format or usage constraints are provided.

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 tool renames an agent by setting its display name and optional bio. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'self-only' operation and the permanent registration name, making it unique among tools like sage_register (for initial registration) and sage_inception (for creation).

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('to give yourself a meaningful, human-readable identity instead of the default provider/project name'). It also clearly states a key constraint ('Self-only: an agent can only rename itself'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or discuss alternatives, slightly reducing clarity.

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