rename_factory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that machines are untouched, nothing re-anchors, the label keeps anchors/notes/centroid/signature/dates, stored plans follow the new name, and name collisions are refused with an explanatory message. It stops short of stating permissions or idempotency, keeping it from a 5.

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 core facts (rename label, machines untouched, plans follow, collision refused) are front-loaded, but the second paragraph's aside about 'correcting one used to mean naming the whole selection again' is narrative padding that doesn't help an agent decide or invoke.

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?

Behavioral side effects are covered well for an unannotated tool with no output schema, but three of five parameters (save, as_of, world) are left undocumented by both schema and description, so the definition is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 only 40% across 5 parameters. The description implies the 'name'/'to' pair but never names them, and says nothing about save, as_of, or world. It does not compensate for the documentation gap the schema leaves.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Rename a factory label.' An agent immediately knows the operation. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like name_factory or amend_factory, so the sibling boundary is left implicit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description mentions a collision case (renaming onto an existing name is refused) but does not tell the agent when to reach for rename_factory versus name_factory or amend_factory. Context is implied at best.

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