rename_data_source

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it rewrites all references atomically, stages matches before committing, and errors on duplicate or identical names. This provides sufficient transparency for safe invocation.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary action and scope, the second adds atomicity and error details. Every sentence provides value.

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?

The description covers the core behavior, side effects, atomicity, and error conditions. It lacks details about the return value or confirmation, but given no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, it is adequate for a rename 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?

The description adds meaning for 'old_name' and 'new_name' implicitly through the rename action, but it does not explain the 'path' parameter, which is required. With 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify all three parameters.

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 'DataSource'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing that it rewrites all references (DataSet/Query/DataSourceName entries and shared-source links), which is unique among data source tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (rename operation with automatic reference rewriting). It explicitly mentions error conditions (new_name already exists or equals old_name), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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