Rename service

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the usage trigger. It does not warn about the consequences of renaming (e.g., dependent domains or DNS), nor mention permissions or reversibility. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description still leaves the destructive consequence unexplained.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and parameter detail.

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 destructive mutation with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not cover identifier expectations, rename consequences, or how the tool relates to service_set. An agent could invoke it but would be missing important context.

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%: only 'name' is described, as 'New name'. The description does not explain whether project and service are identifiers, slugs, or names, nor how the new name interacts with them. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 and resource ('rename an existing Lizard service'), so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema. It does not differentiate from adjacent siblings like service_set, which also modifies a service, 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 description gives an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants to rename...'), which is clear usage context. It offers no exclusions or alternatives, such as using service_set for unrelated configuration changes, so it is not fully routing-aware.

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