rename_sensor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. 'Rename a sensor' implies a write operation, but it does not state that the change is persistent, whether the original sensor ID remains stable, or any permission/ownership requirements. The Args add limited semantic detail but no broader behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded: a clear one-line purpose followed by two concise parameter explanations. Every line earns its place, and there is no redundant filler or unnecessary abstraction.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the core action and parameter semantics. However, it leaves out context such as whether the rename affects resource references, how errors are reported, and whether the operation is idempotent. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 compensate for the bare schema, and it does. It clarifies that sensor_id is 'Numeric sensor ID' even though the JSON schema types it as a string, and that name is the 'New display name.' This adds meaning beyond the parameter names and types, though it omits constraints like maximum length or uniqueness.

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 action, 'Rename a sensor,' identifying the verb and resource class. The Args list further clarifies that the tool takes a sensor ID and a new display name. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling rename tools, but the resource 'sensor' is enough to differentiate from rename_light and rename_scene.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_sensor_config or delete_sensor. The imperative 'Rename' implies the obvious use case, but there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or mention of what to do if the sensor already has a name or is referenced elsewhere.

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