sage_rename

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool only renames the agent itself (self-only) and does not change the permanent registration name or agent_id. It also specifies the behavior of the boot_bio parameter (preserved if omitted, replaced if provided). This adequately covers the behavioral traits for a rename operation.

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 with five sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then provides context, constraints, and parameter behavior. No superfluous words or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does, constraints, and parameter behavior. One minor gap: it does not mention if display names must be unique, but this is not critical for basic understanding.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description's additional text on boot_bio ('Omitting boot_bio preserves your existing bio; passing it replaces the bio') mirrors the schema description. Since schema_description_coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'rename' and the resource 'agent display name and bio'. It specifies that it sets the display name and optional bio that appears in the CEREBRUM dashboard and to other agents. This differentiates it from sibling tools like sage_register, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides context on when to use the tool: to give a human-readable identity instead of a default provider/project name. It explicitly states 'Self-only: an agent can only rename itself' and clarifies that permanent registration name and agent_id never change. No explicit alternatives are given, but the self-only constraint provides clear usage boundaries.

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