rename_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation ('rename') but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether the change is reversible, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place in conveying the core purpose.

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 description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral nuances like idempotency. Given the complexity of renaming a workspace, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (workspaceId and newName). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints like the newName length limits. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('rename') and target resource ('existing workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_workspace' and 'update_workspace' by focusing specifically on renaming, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives.

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 'update_workspace' or 'create_workspace'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workspace ID) or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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