eda_dmt_schematic_modify_schematic_page_name

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the method returns a Promise<boolean> indicating success, but does not mention side effects, failure conditions, permission requirements, or whether the rename affects references to the page. These are significant unknowns for a mutating 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?

The description is short and the signature is front-loaded, with a concise Chinese statement of purpose and return value. There is slight redundancy between the signature line and the following description, but no filler or irrelevant detail.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out important invocation context: it does not explain that schematicPageUuid must be obtained from a prior query, does not mention any constraints on the new name, and does not clarify how windowId selection works beyond the schema's generic note. An agent would likely need to inspect sibling tools to call this correctly.

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 actual parameters (schematicPageUuid, schematicPageName) are not described in the input schema – the schema only has generic args and windowId. The description compensates by naming the parameters, their types, and their order via the function signature. It lacks deeper semantics like uniqueness constraints or where the UUID comes from, but it adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the operation: modifying a schematic page name, with a function signature showing both parameters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as eda_dmt_schematic_modify_schematic_name (modifies the schematic, not the page) and eda_dmt_schematic_create_schematic_page (creates a page).

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on prerequisites such as how to obtain the schematicPageUuid (e.g., from eda_dmt_schematic_get_schematic_page_info). The only usage signal is implied by the operation name, which is not enough for an agent to make an informed choice.

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