rename_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it rewrites text, is case-sensitive, atomic (collects then commits), and errors if new_name exists or equals old_name. This is comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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 wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action, every sentence adds value: renaming, rewriting, case-sensitivity, atomicity, error conditions.

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 3 required params, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers scope, case-sensitivity, atomicity, and error conditions completely. No gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains old_name and new_name roles but does not describe the 'path' parameter, leaving ambiguity about its purpose.

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 tool renames a ReportParameter and rewrites all textual occurrences of Parameters!<old_name>.Value/.Label across the report. It specifies case-sensitivity and atomicity, distinguishing it from siblings like rename_data_source.

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 implies usage through its action but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives. It only mentions error conditions, not context for selection.

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