pattern_rename

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates that the tool mutates an existing pattern, but it does not explain error behavior, undoability, or any side effects on references to the renamed pattern.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is as concise as the operation is simple, and every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves key context unexplained, especially parameter semantics and failure/validation behavior. An agent could guess, but the description is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It never clarifies that 'index' identifies the pattern to rename or that 'name' is the new name; the agent must infer this from parameter names and the operation context.

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 states a clear verb ('rename') and a specific resource ('an existing pattern'), precisely conveying what the tool does. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling pattern tools like pattern_create, pattern_clone, and pattern_delete without requiring schema inspection.

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 phrasing implies it should be used when renaming an existing pattern rather than creating, cloning, or deleting one. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention prerequisites such as the index referring to an existing pattern.

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