Rename service

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

The annotations already indicate that this is a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the purpose—there is no mention of validation behavior, effects on references, naming constraints, or consequences of renaming a service. With the full burden shifted to annotations, this is a minimal disclosure.

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, directly relevant sentence with no filler. It front-loads the intended use and contains only information relevant to tool selection.

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 simple rename operation, the description covers the core use case: the user wants to rename an existing service. However, it leaves important operational details uncovered—parameter value semantics, whether the new name has constraints, and what happens on failure. The lack of an output schema and sparse parameter descriptions make this only minimally viable.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate. Only 'name' is documented in the schema, while 'project' and 'service' lack descriptions and are not explained in the description. The agent is left to infer whether these are IDs, names, or slugs, and no format or relationship guidance is 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'rename an existing Lizard service'. This clearly distinguishes the action from create/delete/list operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like service_set or service_set_port, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Use this when the user wants to rename an existing Lizard service' gives a clear, explicit trigger condition for invoking the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., saying 'for port changes use service_set_port'), so it lacks the when-not guidance needed for a 5.

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